By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

While we give a detailed report concerning Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Kinderhook plates in our book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? new and important information has recently come to light. The Mormon publication Times and Seasons for May 1, 1843, reported that these plates were found in a mound in Kinderhook, Illinois. In a letter written from Nauvoo, dated May 2, 1843, Charlotte Haven commented:

. . . Mr. Joshua Moore, . . . brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of brass . . . in the form of a bell . . . They were recently found, he said, in a mound . . . When he 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. So a sequel to that holy book may soon be expected. (Overland Monthly, December 1890, page 630)

According to the History of the Church, Joseph Smith did accept these plates as authentic and even claimed that he had translated a portion of them:

Monday, May, 1.—. . . 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. (History of the Church, vol. 5, page 372)

On January 15, 1844, this statement appeared in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons:

Why does the circumstance of the plates recently found in a mound in Pike county, Ill., by Mr. Wiley, together with ethmology and a thousand other things, go to prove the Book of Mormon true?—Ans. Because it is true! (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 406)

A number of the citizens of Kinderhook certified that the plates were taken from the mound by R. Wiley. Unfortunately for the Mormon position, however, it was later discovered that the plates were forgeries, made for the purpose of tricking Joseph Smith. W. Fugate, one of those who signed the certificate, wrote the following in a letter to James T. Cobb:

Bridge Whitton cut them 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.

At the time of the Civil War the Kinderhook plates were lost. M. Wilford Poulson, a retired teacher at Brigham Young University and a student of Mormon history, told us that he found one of the original Kinderhook plates in the Chicago Historical Society Museum, but it was mislabeled as one of the original gold plates of the Book of Mormon. The plate which he found has been identified as number 5 in the facsimiles found in the History of the Church. Except for an acid blotch on one side, the plate is in excellent condition. Mr. Poulson did a great deal of research concerning the Kinderhook plates and was convinced that they were made in the 1840s as W. Fugate claimed.

Welby W. Ricks, who was President of the BYU Archaeological Society, had another opinion concerning these plates. The official Mormon publication, Improvement Era, accepted his view and printed the following in September, 1962:

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. . . .

The plates are now back in their original category of genuine.

What scholars may learn from this ancient record in future years or what may be translated by divine power is an exciting thought to contemplate.

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. (The Kinderhook Plates, by Welby W. Ricks, reprinted from the Improvement Era, September 1962)

In 1965 George M. Lawrence, a Mormon physicist, was given permission to examine and make “some non-destructive physical studies of the surviving plate.” Mr. Lawrence allowed us to quote from his study in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? On page 113 we quoted him as saying:

The dimensions, tolerances, composition and workmanship are consistent with the facilities of an 1843 blacksmith shop and with the fraud stories of the original participants.

Since Mr. Lawrence was only allowed to make nondestructive tests, some Mormon scholars would not accept his work as conclusive.

In 1980 the Mormon scholar Stanley P. Kimball was able “to secure permission from the Chicago Historical Society for the recommended destructive tests. These tests, involving some very sophisticated analytical techniques, were performed by Professor D. Lynn Johnson of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University” (Ensign, August 1981, page 69).

Professor Kimball describes the results of the tests in the official Church publication Ensign, August 1981:

A recent electronic and chemical analysis of a metal plate (one of six original plates) brought in 1843 to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, appears to solve a previously unanswered question in Church history, helping to further evidence that the plate is what its producers later said it was—a nineteenth-century attempt to lure Joseph Smith into making a translation of ancient-looking characters that had been etched into the plates. . . .

As a result of these tests, we concluded that the plate owned by the Chicago Historical Society is not of ancient origin. We concluded that the plate was etched with acid; and as Paul Cheesman and other scholars have pointed out, ancient inhabitants would probably have engraved the plates rather than etched them with acid. Secondly, we concluded that the plate was made from a true brass alloy (copper and zinc) typical of the mid-nineteenth century; whereas the “brass” of ancient times was actually bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. (The Ensign, August 1981, pages 66 and 70)

Back in 1970, the Mormon scholar John A. Wittorf tried to come to grips with what would happen if the Kinderhook plates were proven to be forgeries:

Accepting the find as genuine, Joseph had facsimile drawings of the plates made, presumably for future study. The brevity of his translation of “a portion of the plates” precludes the possibility that—if the plates are ultimately demonstrated to be fraudulent— his abilities as a translator of ancient scripts and languages can be called into question. (Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, BYU. October 1970, page 7)

In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 113, we observed:

Although we are happy to see John A. Wittorf’s honesty with regard to the Kinderhook plates, we cannot agree with him when he states that Joseph Smith’s reputation as a translator will not be affected. We feel that Joseph Smith’s work on the plates casts serious doubt upon his ability as a translator of “ancient scripts and languages.” He definitely stated that he “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” (History of the Church, vol. 5, page 372). Now, in order to obtain this much information from the plates it would have been necessary to have translated quite a number of the characters, and a man who could make such a serious mistake with regard to the Kinderhook plates is just the type of man who would pretend to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri which he knew nothing about.

The Mormon scholar Paul R. Cheesman opened the door for an entirely different approach to the problem in an article written in March, 1970. He suggested that Joseph Smith was not really the author of the statement about the translation which appeared in the History of the Church:

As of now, the original source of Joseph Smith’s statement, under the date of May 1, 1843, concerning the Kinderhook Plate, cannot be found. Much of Volume V of the Documentary History of the Church was recorded by Leo Hawkins in 1853, after the saints were in Utah, and was collected by Willard Richards from journals. . . . Liberty was taken by historians of those days to put the narrative in the first person, even though the source was not as such. Verification of the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s statement is still under study. In examining the diary of Willard Richards, the compiler of Volume V, the Kinderhook story is not found there. Our research has taken us through numerous diaries and letters written at this particular time, and the Kinderhook story is not mentioned. (“An Analysis of the Kinderhook Plates,” an unpublished paper by Paul R. Cheesman, page 2)

Some of our readers will remember that as early as 1965 we charged that Joseph Smith was not really the author of a large portion of the material attributed to him. This was finally confirmed by Dean C. Jessee of the Church Historical Department in an article published in Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971. According to Jessee’s research over 60% of Joseph Smith’s History was compiled after his death. In any case, the idea with regard to the Kinderhook plates seemed to be that if they turned out to be forgeries, a person could get the Church off the hook by arguing that the statement attributed to Joseph Smith concerning the translation was also a forgery. This is certainly a strange way of looking at the matter—almost as if “two wrongs” would make “a right.” Since the History of the Church was prepared by the highest officials of the Mormon Church and printed by the Church itself, to admit falsification in it is to undermine the entire foundation of Mormonism. Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth President of the Church, claimed that the History of the Church “is the most accurate history in all the world, it must be so” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, page 199).

Since the recent tests on the Kinderhook plate, Mormon apologists find themselves facing a real dilemma, and there is no way out without doing serious injury to the Church. Stanley B. Kimball chose to discredit the accuracy of the History of the Church rather than admit that Joseph Smith “translated” bogus plates:

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.” (Ensign, August 1981, page 67)

Professor Kimball was apparently planning to advance the argument that since the part in Joseph Smith’s History concerning the Kinderhook plate was not recorded until after his death and since there seems to be nothing written in any journal during his lifetime, it must have been made up by later historians. Before Kimball printed his article, however, he was informed that the Church was suppressing a journal written by William Clayton which contained evidence that Joseph Smith did “translate” a portion of the plates. This journal was hidden in the First Presidency’s vault, but Kimball was able to obtain a copy of the important portion:

President 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. (Ibid., page 73)

Professor Kimball maintains that this is the original source for the entry in Joseph Smith’s History. Speaking of this History, Kimball writes:

Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. . . . the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion. . .” . . . 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. (Ibid., pages 67-68)

Stanley Kimball is undoubtedly correct in assuming that Clayton’s journal is the source for the entry in Joseph Smith’s History. The two writings appear to be too similar to be coincidental. While this shows evidence of falsification on the part of Church leaders as far as the History of the Church goes, Clayton’s journal proves that Joseph Smith claimed he had “translated a portion” of the plates. This testimony by Clayton cannot be easily set aside. For one thing, Clayton’s account is contemporary with the event. According to Kimball, “in his journal entry of Monday, May 1, he included a tracing of one of the plates” (Ibid., page 71). Furthermore, Clayton was Joseph Smith’s scribe and was in constant contact with him. James B. Allen wrote:

Beginning in early 1842, then, William Clayton became involved in nearly every important activity in Nauvoo, including the private concerns of the Prophet. . . . He became an intimate friend and confidant of Joseph Smith, writing letters for him, recording revelations, and performing important errands. As a scribe he kept the sacred “Book of the Law of the Lord”; was officially designated to write the history of the Nauvoo Temple; helped prepare the official history of Joseph Smith (indeed, his personal journals become the source for many entries in that history); and kept various other books . . . for almost two and a half years, until Joseph’s death in 1844, they were in each other’s presence almost daily. (Journal of Mormon History, vol. 6, 1979, pages 42-43)

If anyone would be in a position to know what Joseph Smith really believed about the Kinderhook plates, it would be William Clayton.

Since Clayton’s journal was apparently used for the statement about the Kinderhook Plate in the History of the Church, it shows that the highest leaders of the Church at the time the History was compiled also believed that Joseph Smith “translated a portion” of the plates. Wilford Woodruff (who became the fourth President of the Church) and George A. Smith said that the History was “carefully revised under the strict inspection of President Brigham Young, and approved by him” (History of the Church, vol. 1, Preface, page VI).

Besides the Clayton journal, there is other contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith “translated a portion” of the plates. On May 7, 1843, just six days after the entry appears in Clayton’s journal, the Apostle Parley P. Pratt wrote a letter containing the following:

“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.” (Ensign, August 1981, page 73)

If Joseph Smith had not been murdered in June of 1844, it is very possible that he might have published a “translation” of the Kinderhook plates. On May 22, 1844, just a month before his death, the Warsaw Signal published the following statement:

Jo. had a facsimile taken, and engraved on wood, and it now appears from the statement of a writer in the St. Louis Gazette, that he is busy in translating them. The new work which Jo. about to issue as a translation of these plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequal to the Book of Mormon; . . .

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: “The 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.” It is certainly possible that the Church still has Joseph Smith’s unpublished work on the Kinderhook plates.

However this may be, Joseph Smith certainly fell into a trap when he claimed to translate a portion of the plates. James D. Bales brings the whole matter clearly into focus when he writes:

What does this all add up to? Does it merely mean that one of the “finds” which the Latter Day Saints believed supported the Book of Mormon does not support it, and that there is no real blow dealt to the prophetship of Joseph Smith? Not at all, for as Charles A. Shook well observed. . . . “Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates.” Where we can check up on Smith as a translator of plates, he is found guilty of deception. How can we trust him with reference to his claims about the Book of Mormon? If we cannot trust him where we can check him, we cannot trust him where we cannot check his translations. (The Book of Mormon? 1958, page 98)

---

---