Kinderhook Plates & Translator Claims
Start: Introduction
Previous: Prophets
Contents for this section:
“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhoook…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.”– JOSEPH SMITH, JR., HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, VOL. 5, CHAPTER 19, P.372
“Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax.”
In the small town of Kinderhook 60 miles south of Nauvoo, 3 men got together to play a prank on the Latter-day Saints. They created six small bell-shaped brass plates, engraved both sides of them, and buried them in the ground, and then dug them back up soon after.
Someone took the plates and brought them to Joseph Smith in the beginning of May 1843. They were put on display such that William Clayton, Brigham Young, and Parley P. Pratt wrote about them at that time, providing a description. The quote above in the History of the Church comes from William Clayton's journal. There was some excitement that Joseph would translate them, but he never did.
Perhaps the best description of what happened comes from the New York Herald where they published 30 May 1843 a letter from a member of another faith, writing from Nauvoo on May 7th. After describing the discovery, they wrote:
They were brought up and shown to Joseph Smith. He compared them in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet, which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and they are evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them. There can be no doubt but they are a record of some kind, buried with an individual, centuries ago; a skeleton was found with them—some of the bones in such a state of preservation as to show the size of the individual, whose height must have been eight and a half feet. You may expect something very remarkably pretty soon.
What appears to have happened is that Joseph compared the plates to the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) and found a matching symbol. It doesn't appear that Joseph claimed to have received a revealed translation. Nor did he continue to translate it. Although many Latter-day Saints anticipated a full translation, Joseph Smith quickly lost interest.
1. KINDERHOOK PLATES“Church historians continued to insist on the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates until 1980 when an examination conducted by the Chicago Historical Society, possessor of one plate, proved it was a nineteenth-century creation.”
– LDS Historian Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p.490
Here are the sentences before the one quoted in the same paragraph. After giving Clayton's account of the translation, he says:
Joseph seemed to be stepping into the trap, but then he pulled back. Pressure from Taylor and the Quincy Whig did not push him any further. After the first meeting, no further mention was made of translation, and the Kinderhook plates dropped out of sight. Joseph may not have detected the fraud, but he did not swing into a full-fledged translation as he had with the Egyptian scrolls. The trap did not quite spring shut, which foiled the conspirators' original plan. Instead of exposing the plot immediately, as they had probably intended to do, they said nothing until 1879, when one of them signed an affidavit describing the fabrication.
Whether members believed the plates were legitimate or not, that doesn't change the fact that Joseph largely ignored them.
FACSIMILES OF THE SIX DOUBLE-SIDED KINDERHOOK PLATES
| JOSEPH SMITH'S TRANSLATION | THE HOAX UNCOVERED |
"I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person 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." —Joseph Smith, Jr. | The plates turned out to be a hoax. Metallurgical tests revealed the plates to be of late 19th century construction. In addition, the script was created using a 19th- century chemical etch process. In August, 1981 LDS Ensign Magazine conceded: "Kinderhook plates brought to Joseph Smith appear to be a 19th-century hoax." |
These are the same quotes from the introduction. The quote from the first column comes from the History of the Church, and the original source is William Clayton's journal, where he wrote as part of his 1 May 1843 entry:
Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & 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 & earth
As explained in the Ensign article Jeremy referenced, the History of the Church drew from the journals of others and then re-wrote it to be as if in the first person. As for the quote itself, this appears to be similar to the symbol at the bottom of this page of the GAEL, which says,
honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharoah. possession by birth one who riegns upon his throne universally— possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth.
It seems likely that Joseph compared the dish-like symbol at the top of one of the Kinderhook plates, saw a similar symbol in the GAEL, and either read it off or gave a slightly different interpretation based on the symbol.
In an earlier section, Jeremy touched on a problem he had with the GAEL, and so it may seem confusing as to how the GAEL is a defense of the Kinderhook plates. As a refresher, the GAEL was apparently part of an attempt to learn Egyptian, drawing from earlier documents with incomplete transliterations and definitions of Egyptian characters. It's not known how much Joseph Smith was involved, but it seems he approved of the work.
The defense isn't saying that the GAEL is actually correct or that Joseph correctly translated the Kinderhook plates, but rather that he didn't translate it at all. For everything else, Joseph translated through revelation, but for this, he looked it up in a book instead. This means the incident doesn't really say anything about Joseph Smith being a prophet—it was a prank, but it only tells us that the reference book was pointless in providing a translation.
- The plates were named after the town in which they were found - Kinderhook, IL. A farmer claimed he dug the plates out of a mound. They took the plates to Joseph Smith for examination and he translated a portion.
- Not only did Joseph not discern the fraud, he added to the fraud by “translating” the fake plates. The LDS Church now concedes it’s a hoax. What does this tell us about Joseph Smith’s gift of translation?
Since Joseph apparently didn't fall for the hoax, it doesn't tell us anything about Joseph Smith's gift of translation.
2. BOOK OF ABRAHAM
As outlined in the “Book of Abraham” section, Joseph Smith got everything wrong about the papyri, the facsimiles, the names, the gods, the scene context, the fact that the papyri and facsimiles were first century C.E. funerary text, who was male, who was female, etc. It’s gibberish.
As Jeremy says here, this entire part is going to summarize things that he already brought up in the Book of Abraham section. As we discussed there, the Book of Abraham is clearly not gibberish, and it seems Jeremy intended to just say that it was wrong. While Jeremy is not impressed, I find the interpretations interesting. And if we assume that Joseph was trying to deceive people, why would he identify obviously female figures as male? From a faithful perspective, it seems to me that the interpretation of the figures is not intended to be literal.
There is not one single non-LDS Egyptologist who supports Joseph’s Book of Abraham, its claims, or Joseph’s translations. Even LDS Egyptologists acknowledge there are serious problems with the Book of Abraham and Joseph’s claims.
The link will take you to a 1995 Dialogue Journal article by Stephen E. Thompson where he takes exception to the line "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices" which was printed in the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism in one of five articles on the Book of Abraham, specifically the Book of Abraham: Facsimiles From the Book of Abraham by Michael D. Rhodes.
However, this paragraph isn't really about the things he brings up, though it doesn't appear to be anything that Jeremy didn't bring up in the Book of Abraham section. This is just used to cite a Latter-day Saint Egyptologist that finds problems with the Book of Abraham.
Information on who Stephen E. Thompson is scarce, but he did write one of the five articles in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism linked above, so presumably he is a Latter-day Saint. Regardless of his individual faith, the Church's Gospel Topics Essay on the Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham notes the same sort of thing, that "Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Latter-day Saint scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments."
The difference is that Jeremy and Egyptologists of other faiths see the things Jeremy brings up as "serious problems" while those who maintain faith in the Book of Abraham do not.
Joseph Smith made a claim that he could translate ancient documents. This is a testable claim. Joseph failed the test with the Book of Abraham. He failed the test with the Kinderhook Plates.
If Joseph Smith translated a portion of the papyrus that no longer exists, then it is not a testable claim. If the papyrus only served as a catalyst for revelation, then it is a very untestable claim. Joseph didn't even take the test with the Kinderhook plates since he didn't actually translate them.
With this modus operandi and track record, how can I be expected to believe that Joseph translated the keystone Book of Mormon?
This is the third time that Jeremy has talked about Joseph's modus operandi, a Latin phrase meaning mode of operation. I haven't commented on it before, but as this is the final time, I should now. It is a phrase often used in criminal investigations, where detectives recognize a pattern of behavior to identify several crimes as coming from a single criminal. I think it is in this sense that Jeremy is using the phrase, that he sees "deceit" as Joseph's modus operandi.
I would suggest we actually describe Joseph's modus operandi and see how it plays out with the Kinderhook plates. With the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith placed the Nephite translators or his own seer stone in a hat and dictated the Book of Mormon for about 74 working days in 1829, and was published soon after.
Joseph did not use a seer stone for other translation projects. With his inspired Bible revision, Joseph used an 1828 Phinney edition of the King James Bible, dictating it with changes at first, and then directly marking in the Bible later changes. He worked between 1830-1833, but was not published in its entirety during his lifetime. What we have today as the Book of Moses was first published in 1843.
Joseph began translating the Book of Abraham in 1835. There are no detailed accounts of this translation process, but again, he apparently again dictated a translation by revelation without using a seer stone. He returned to it in 1842 and it was first published in March that year.
In May 1843, someone brought him some plates found in Kinderhook for him to translate. Rather than translate it by revelation, he apparently looked up a symbol in the GAEL, reported what it said, and then ignored it. This doesn't seem to match his modus operandi at all. It's almost as if he didn't think it was worth translating for some reason.
Here is how I would describe Joseph Smith's modus operandi: Joseph Smith would have a question about something, he would ask God, and receive a revelation that would answer his question. He was not perfect, but he would do his best to follow the direction that God gave him.
And that he translated with a rock in a hat? That the gold plates that ancient prophets went through all that time and effort of making, engraving, compiling, abridging, preserving, hiding, and transporting were useless?
This is continuing Jeremy's question from before, "How can I be expected to believe..." but this seems unrelated to what he had been saying about the Kinderhook plates, and is instead going back to what he had said at the beginning and end of the Book of Mormon Translation section, that if Joseph Smith used a seer stone, then what were the purpose of the plates?
No one expects you to believe that the plates were useless. The traditional narrative already has the Nephite interpreters, so we are still left with the same question—If Joseph Smith used the interpreters, then what were the purpose of the plates? Or if Joseph was supposed to use the plates, then we could ask what was the purpose of the interpreters? I would say that besides being the source of the Book of Mormon, the plates served as a physical witness to Joseph Smith and 11 other men, and several others. Protecting the plates was the first lesson that Joseph Smith had, which helped train him to be the prophet he became.
Moroni’s 5,000 mile journey lugging the gold plates from Mesoamerica (if you believe the unofficial apologists) all the way to New York to bury the plates, then come back as a resurrected angel, and instruct Joseph for 4 years only for Joseph to translate instead using just a…rock in a hat?
A rock he found digging in his neighbor’s property in 1822 and which he later used for treasure hunting – a year before Moroni appeared in his bedroom and 5 years before he got the gold plates and Urim and Thummim?
The first paragraph is just expanding on the previous sentence. Jeremy brought up Joseph's seer stone and treasure hunting in the Book of Mormon Translation section, but this time he brought up how Joseph found his seer stone. I talked about the history there, and how Joseph actually found more than one seer stone, so it might not have been the one he found digging a well, but then again, he may have used both seer stones at different times.
Jeremy's link takes you to the Gospel Topics Essay on the Book of Mormon Translation and if you are looking for the relevant line, you will find it in footnote 18, "Joseph Smith probably possessed more than one seer stone; he appears to have found one of the stones while digging for a well around 1822."
W. W. Phelps appears to be the first to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to the Nephite interpreters, in a January 1833 Evening and Morning Star article, where he said, "It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, though the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)".
It can be confusing because the term was also used to refer to Joseph's seer stone. For example, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal that on 27 December 1841, "I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM". By this time Joseph had returned the interpreters to the angel, so necessarily would have referred to his seer stone. Effectively, the Nephite interpreters are seer stones.
The historical record indicates that Joseph translated by a variety of methods, it's not like he only used his seer stone. According to Martin Harris, he first used the interpreters, but then used his seer stone "for convenience" and William Smith explained that the interpreters were too large for his face and looking through them would strain his eyes.
Joseph Smith claimed to have translated three ancient records. The Book of Abraham: proven a fraud. The Kinderhook Plates: found to be a hoax. The Book of Mormon: the only one of the three for which we do not have the original. I'm sure he was only wrong on two out of three.
AFTER ALL, WOULDN’T YOU BUY A THIRD CAR FROMA MAN WHO HAD ALREADY SOLD YOU TWO CLUNKERS?
Obviously the analogy doesn't make complete sense given that the Book of Mormon is first, but it is just an analogy, so not meant to be perfect. There's a saying that "All models are wrong, but some are useful." With that in mind, I would like to answer by taking it and making my own imperfect analogy.
The Kinderhook clunker wasn't something Joseph Smith even tried to sell. Making a comment and ignoring them would be more like if someone came up to Joseph the car dealer, pointed at the distance and said, "I see a car in the distance, tell me all about it!" And he compares it to some drawings he made and answers "Looks like a Ford Taurus." And then 25 years later they write a letter to a friend explaining how they made it out of cardboard and it wasn't a car at all.
The Book of Abraham though is something Joseph claimed to be a inspired translation. However, it has not been proven to be a fraud, as discussed in the Book of Abraham section. While we don't know its relationship to the papyri, it does contain details consistent with modern discoveries of the ancient world. Rather than a clunker, I would describe it as a great-running vehicle. Maybe it doesn't look like much, but just because you think it looks like it wouldn't run doesn't mean it won't run well.
The Book of Mormon is the same. People have been criticizing the Book of Mormon for nearly 200 years, but as time has gone on, it has become more verified. More importantly, on an individual level, I have found that it lives up to its promise that it brings us to Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment