Kinderhook And Critics

[LifeOnaPlate]

Recently on the board the Kinderhook plates have been lumped in with the litany of rapid-fire reasons Joseph Smith is proven to have been a fraud. (For background on the Kinderhook plates, see Stanley B. Kimball, “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax,” Ensign, Aug. 1981, 66. See also the Light Planet entry on the Kinderhook Plates.) The best historical evidence critics have associating Joseph Smith with the fraudulent plates is from the journal of William Clayton:

[Clayton writing in first person, as though Joseph Smith]]"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" (DHC 5:372).

As Jeff Lyndsay explains, "Clayton's journal entry was added to the serialized 'History of Joseph Smith' printed in the Deseret News in Utah in 1856, long after the death of Joseph...The significant thing is that there is no evidence that Joseph showed any serious interest in them. No translation was undertaken. No attempt was made to purchase the plates (as did occur with the authentic Egyptian scrolls and mummies that were brought to Joseph, part of the story of the Book of Abraham)." Analytics and others believe that as Joseph's scribe, Clayton must have received all his information from Joseph himself. This is, quite frankly, impossible to prove. Additionally, other rumors about the plates circulated through Nauvoo. Again, nothing ever became of these rumors.

In another recent thread, MAD poster "Analytics" insisted on the veracity of the Kinderhook experience as evidence against Joseph Smith's honesty. He seemed to be admitting that the evidence is not as strong as he would prefer in order to declare it an open and shut case, but nonetheless, declares it so. Others such as Grant Palmer believe the Kinderhook experience demonstrate that Joseph Smith must have made up the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon. (Note that actual translations and firsthand statements from Joseph Smith regarding those two translations actually exist.)

Analytics:

Maybe some of his fantastic stories were real. Maybe he didn’t mean for them to be taken seriously. Maybe he was just doing it for fun or to say interesting things. I’m sure if I was with him whenever he told a story, I would have gotten a kick out of it. No harm done. I’m totally willing to attribute to him the purest of motives for making up stories. But to deny the fact that he made up stories is to deny reality. He was a storyteller.

Joseph Smith's other "stories" include things like like angels and gold plates, and many involved actual witnesses. The Book of Mormon is clearly much more substantive and verifiable (both as a historical document and an ancient text) than was the one line toss-off comment by Clayton, which cannot be shown to have originated verbatim from Joseph Smith, or that Smith was serious even if he did speculate on the k. plates. The fact people throw out the Kinderhook example as though it actually means something incontrovertible, when in reality, it doesn't.

Analytics' comment reveals the reason behind citing Kinderhook. His acceptance of the Kinderhook plates as substantive is based on his preconceived disbelief in Joseph Smith. The approach is that of Fawn Brodie, who "knew" what Joseph was really like and interpreted all evidence based on that "knowledge."

It's bad history.

[Mudcat]

The Book of Mormon is clearly much more substantive and verifiable (both as a historical document and an ancient text) than was the one line toss-off comment by Clayton, which cannot be shown to have originated verbatim from Joseph Smith, or that Smith was serious even if he did speculate on the k. plates. The fact people throw out the Kinderhook example as though it actually means something incontrovertible, when in reality, it doesn't.

He LOaP,

Should we also throw out the King Follett Discourse, didn't Clayton contribute there as well?

Apparently JS trusted the fellow or he wouldn't have used him as a scribe. I'm not saying you haven't made a point, but I would be curious to know if LDS would disregard his Clayton's writing if it proved that Smith knew the K Plates were a fraud. IOW, is a source only to be discredited when you don't agree with it?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[selek]

He LOaP,

Should we also throw out the King Follett Discourse, didn't Clayton contribute there as well?

Apparently JS trusted the fellow or he wouldn't have used him as a scribe. I'm not saying you haven't made a point, but I would be curious to know if LDS would disregard his Clayton's writing if it proved that Smith knew the K Plates were a fraud. IOW, is a source only to be discredited when you don't agree with it?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Morning, Muddie!

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) there exist more than the one account of the King Follett Discourse. Others confirm it- though not in all particulars.

In the case of the Kinderhook fraud, we have only Clayton's story attesting to the "certification" by Joseph.

If I'm not very much mistaken, everything "damning" about Kinderhook flows from the single account, which is not corroborated.

If I'm wrong in this, I look forward to the correction....I haven't learned anything yet this morning.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He LOaP,

Should we also throw out the King Follett Discourse, didn't Clayton contribute there as well?

Actually, your question raises an interesting comparison. Clayton did "contribute there as well," but how was this contribution different? First, Clayton's notes are from an actual sermon of Joseph Smith. His notes can be compared with those of Willard Richards, Samuel W. Richards, Thomas Bullock, Wilford Woodruff, and George Laub. Still, the quasi-official version we use today (found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith) may be less reliable than members of the Church have known thus far. Shorthand was still years away, and comparing the notes of the above named men makes for a very interesting historical exercise. The TPJS version is based upon Bullock's Times and Seasons amalgamated version which was not done until the month after the sermon. Joseph Smith possibly reviewed the text, but there is no record that he did either way. Thus, when I read the quasi-official version now there is a lingering doubt. I am more disposed to compare the various notes and see what I can discover there, than I am to accept the TPJS version at face value. You can do so likewise, a handy compilation can be found at the BOAP website.

Even when we have the words of these many witnesses we are still faced with the specter of not knowing what Joseph Smith's actual words were in the KFD. Compare that to Clayton's isolated personal entry.

Apparently JS trusted the fellow or he wouldn't have used him as a scribe.

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Clayton, nor do I believe Joseph Smith had any large reason to, either. However, I do realize the power of rumor and the potential for mistakes in the human condition, generally, as do you, I assume. That ought to go without saying.

I'm not saying you haven't made a point, but I would be curious to know if LDS would disregard his Clayton's writing if it proved that Smith knew the K Plates were a fraud. IOW, is a source only to be discredited when you don't agree with it?

See my remarks above regarding the KFD.

[Doctor Steuss]

He LOaP,

Should we also throw out the King Follett Discourse, didn't Clayton contribute there as well?

Apparently JS trusted the fellow or he wouldn't have used him as a scribe. I'm not saying you haven't made a point, but I would be curious to know if LDS would disregard his Clayton's writing if it proved that Smith knew the K Plates were a fraud. IOW, is a source only to be discredited when you don't agree with it?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I think the evidence indicates that Joseph did indeed attempt a translation of the Kinderhook plates (not only do we have Clayton, but we also have Taylor in Times and Seasons). But, given that he didnâ??t attempt to do so (or claim to do so) via revelation or of use of the seer stone, and instead sent for lexicons, methinks it was of a secular nature. He did not attempt to do so via his role as a Prophet.

Just my heretical opinion.

[Alf O'Mega]

Analytics and others believe that as Joseph's scribe, Clayton must have received all his information from Joseph himself. This is, quite frankly, impossible to prove.

Clayton quotes Joseph Smith as saying:

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.

Less than three weeks later he quotes Joseph as saying:

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter but is more fine or pure and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cant see it but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

Why should the first quotation be subjected to a greater burden of proof than the second? Clayton appears to be our only source for either one. The most straightforward, logical, consistent, and ideologically untainted approach is to accept the likely veracity of both quotes.

See here.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think the evidence indicates that Joseph did indeed attempt a translation of the Kinderhook plates (not only do we have Clayton, but we also have Taylor in Times and Seasons). But, given that he didnâ??t attempt to do so (or claim to do so) via revelation or of use of the seer stone, and instead sent for lexicons, methinks it was of a secular nature. He did not attempt to do so via his role as a Prophet.

Just my heretical opinion.

Wait a sec, you're telling me that Joseph, who demonstrated a fascination with languages, may have attempted to study it out in his mind, hit some roadblocks, then asked if it be right only to receive a stupor of thought or summat?

<---stye eye guy

[oceanblue]

Wait a sec, you're telling me that Joseph, who demonstrated a fascination with languages, may have attempted to study it out in his mind, hit some roadblocks, then asked if it be right only to receive a stupor of thought or summat?

<---stye eye guy

I've often wondered why a guy who had received one set of ancient records from the hand of an angel would assume God would deliver the next set(s) through artifacts dealers and local farmers.

But that's the wonderful thing about religion. All the best stories happen early on. Back in times where verification of anything will make it difficult for anyone to know much of anything about what really happened. No angels are appearing today. No physical records of ancient people are here now. That kind of stuff only happens in books. You're left trying to figure out what book to accept...what account to trust.

The thing is, these things were supposedly happening to Joseph. Why would he think God would turn to farmers?

[Aquilifer]

I think the evidence indicates that Joseph did indeed attempt a translation of the Kinderhook plates (not only do we have Clayton, but we also have Taylor in Times and Seasons). But, given that he didnâ??t attempt to do so (or claim to do so) via revelation or of use of the seer stone, and instead sent for lexicons, methinks it was of a secular nature. He did not attempt to do so via his role as a Prophet.

Just my heretical opinion.

Agreed. I suggest that Joseph Smith had some interest in the plates (if for no other reason than to show something that corroborated the BOM story), found that he could not translate them via inspiration, and resolved to apply his rudimentary skills with ancient languages to the plates. Eventually, the whole episode got lost in the shuffle of more pressing concerns.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Clayton quotes Joseph Smith as saying: [...]

Less than three weeks later he quotes Joseph as saying: [...]

Why should the first quotation be subjected to a greater burden of proof than the second? Clayton appears to be our only source for either one. The most straightforward, logical, consistent, and ideologically untainted approach is to accept the likely veracity of both quotes.

See here.

Did Joseph talk about matter, etc. elsewhere? Did other people record the sayings? Do they match in content and meaning so far as you can tell?

Additionally, why does Clayton's report directly conflict with other mention of the KhP elsewhere in Nauvoo? Do we sense a rumor mill at work here? Is it possible Clayton believed Joseph had translated a portion, or assumed he had, especially if he heard Joseph speculating on what the KhP might contain? Can you find any historical evidence that suggests Smith translated a "portion?" What happened to the portion? If it even existed, why did it disappear?

On the KhP, see also this recent thread.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've often wondered why a guy who had received one set of ancient records from the hand of an angel would assume God would deliver the next set(s) through artifacts dealers and local farmers.

But that's the wonderful thing about religion. All the best stories happen early on. Back in times where verification of anything will make it difficult for anyone to know much of anything about what really happened. No angels are appearing today. No physical records of ancient people are here now. That kind of stuff only happens in books. You're left trying to figure out what book to accept...what account to trust.

The thing is, these things were supposedly happening to Joseph. Why would he think God would turn to farmers?

As my friend RDC quotes in his signature:

Nancy Towle, a female evangelist, to Joseph Smith: "Are you not ashamed, of such pretensions [visions and angelic visitations]? You, who are no more, than an ignorant, plough-boy of our land!"

Joseph's reply: "...the gift, has returned back again, as in former times, to illiterate fishermen."

As quoted in Rough Stone Rolling, p171.

PS- Regarding "All the best stories" happening "early on," I agree we are hard pressed to match the amazing flood of light that occurred at the dawn of this dispensation (see John W. Welch, Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844). However, I also believe there are "best story" miracles occurring among members of the Church to this day.

[wenglund]

I can't speak for LoaP, but I'm not suggesting that Clayton's Kinderhook account be dismissed altogether. Rather, I am suggesting that it be left open to some reasonable question, and not be treated as though it is fact.

Given the relative derth of empirical data in relation to that event, one may logically grant as plausible and reasonable a variety of explanations from which we each may chose a preference.

For my part, and the explanation I believe best accounts for all the historical data, is that several Kinderhook residents, upon learning of all the ancient artifacts that had been circulating around the region and were generating revenues for their proprietors, decided to fabricate their own artifact with the intent of making money. The hoax was hatched and put into action. News of the Kinderhook finding was subsequently spread about the region, and generated considerable excitement.

The suggestion was soon made by several Church members in the area to take the plates to Nauvoo to see what Joseph had to say about them. This suggestion was initially declined, but several non-members (Mr. Savage and Josua Moore) were later sent with the plates to Nauvoo presumably with the hopes of somehow credibilizing the findings via Joseph, thereby increasing the chances of making money.

The plates were then circulated around Nauvoo starting on April 29th of 1843, and rumors began to abound. Joseph was briefly shown the plates on May 1st, and drawing upon his knowledge of the Egytian alphabet, and perhaps going somewhat off what he may have been told about the finding of the plates by those who brought the plates to him (Mr. Savage and Joshua Moore), pointed out several symbols on the plates and informally suggested a plausible meaning, and in that sense, he made a partial translation.

However, because the other symbols were unfamiliar to him, and perhaps of some question as to their authenticity, to the supposed disappointment of the conspirators, he declined undertaking a formal translation until the plates had been sent to experts for authentication. The plates continued to circulate around Nauvoo for several days and were then taken back to Kinderhook on the 3rd of May. Later that year they were sent to the Antiquinarian Society, where it was determined that the symbols, as a whole, on the plates did not resemble known Egyptian. The plates were then returned to Kinderhook and, not to be entirely detered from their money-making scheme, the following year the plates were put in a museum. Joseph was martyred during that time, and likely never saw the plates other than the one time on May 1st of 1843.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alf O'Mega]

Did Joseph talk about matter, etc. elsewhere? Did other people record the sayings? Do they match in content and meaning so far as you can tell?

I welcome any corroborating evidence you have. It is a radical teaching, one that has been very fruitful in Mormon philosophizing ever since. But I don't know of any other statement by Joseph Smith that spirit is matter. Do you?

Additionally, why does Clayton's report directly conflict with other mention of the KhP elsewhere in Nauvoo? Do we sense a rumor mill at work here?

Obviously. But in matters that have excited rumor, is it usual to discount firsthand accounts?

Is it possible Clayton believed Joseph had translated a portion, or assumed he had, especially if he heard Joseph speculating on what the KhP might contain?

The universe of logical possibilities is immense. Of course it's possible. But the most consistent reading is that this was a basically accurate report by a firsthand witness.

Can you find any historical evidence that suggests Smith translated a "portion?"

Why yes. I think somebody cited it on this very thread. You should be able to find it if you look hard enough.

What happened to the portion? If it even existed, why did it disappear?

Who knows? My guess is that the translation was a preliminary, entirely oral pronouncement about the contents of the plates which was not recorded other than in Clayton's journal. (Just as when he first examined the BoA papyri and said, "I began the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egyptâ??a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.") But that's just my guess, and it has nothing to do with the reliability of Clayton's report.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I can't speak for LoaP, but I'm not suggesting that Clayton's Kinderhook account be dismissed altogether. Rather, I am suggesting that it be left open to some reasonable question, and not be treated as though it is fact.

Now we're on the trolley!

The suggestion was soon made by several Church members in the area to take the plates to Nauvoo to see what Joseph had to say about them. This suggestion was initially declined, but several non-members (Mr. Savage and Josua Moore) were later sent with the plates to Nauvoo presumably with the hopes of somehow credibilizing the finds with Joseph, thereby increasing the chances of making money.

The plates were then circulated around Nauvoo starting on April 29th of 1843, and rumors began to abound. Joseph was briefly shown the plates on May 1st, and drawing upon his knowledge of the Egytian alphabet, and perhaps going somewhat off what he may have been told about the finding of the plates by those who brought the plates to him (Mr. Savage and Joshua Moore), pointed out several symbols on the plates and informally suggested a plausible meaning, and in that sense, he made a partial translation.

However, because the other symbols were unfamiliar to him, and perhaps of some question as to their authenticity, to the supposed disappointment of the conspirators, he declined undertaking a formal translation until the plates had been sent to experts for authentication. The plates continued to circulate around Nauvoo for several days and were then taken back to Kinderhook on the 3rd of May. Later that year they were sent to the Antiquinarian Society, where it was determined that the symbols, as a whole, on the plates did not resemble known Egyptian. The plates were then returned to Kinderhook and, not to be entirely detered from their money-making scheme, the following year the plates were put in a museum. Joseph was martyred during that time, and likely never saw the plates other than the one time on May 1st of 1843.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This essentially sums up my personal feeling on the matter. Unfortunately, we don't have enough data to demonstrate it either way.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I welcome any corroborating evidence you have. It is a radical teaching, one that has been very fruitful in Mormon philosophizing ever since. But I don't know of any other statement by Joseph Smith that spirit is matter. Do you?

I believe the idea is expressed in the D&C (quoted there, actually) as well as the Pearl of Great Price, a canonized, thus official, source. Moses 1 discusses spiritual and natural eyes with clarifications. A spiritual and physical creation is also discussed. In short, this statement of the prophet seems to clarify other scriptures. It is not given as a translation, however.

Obviously. But in matters that have excited rumor, is it usual to discount firsthand accounts?

A firsthand account would be an account from Joseph, or an account from those who saw this translation. In the case of Clayton's comment, we can be assured of neither of those things.

The universe of logical possibilities is immense. Of course it's possible. But the most consistent reading is that this was a basically accurate report by a firsthand witness.

I am troubled with the ease at which the "consistent reading" is reached from the data used.

Why yes. I think somebody cited it on this very thread. You should be able to find it if you look hard enough.

If we're talking about speculations, etc. rather than a sit down and dictate as with the BoA or BoM, I don't see a problem there.

Who knows? My guess is that the translation was a preliminary, entirely oral pronouncement about the contents of the plates which was not recorded other than in Clayton's journal. (Just as when he first examined the BoA papyri and said, "I began the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egyptâ??a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.") But that's just my guess, and it has nothing to do with the reliability of Clayton's report.

Where do you get the impression that the phrase "I began the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egyptâ??a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them" occurred before any written translation?

[Lightbearer]

Clayton quotes Joseph Smith as saying:

Less than three weeks later he quotes Joseph as saying:

Why should the first quotation be subjected to a greater burden of proof than the second? Clayton appears to be our only source for either one. The most straightforward, logical, consistent, and ideologically untainted approach is to accept the likely veracity of both quotes.

See here.

"Oh my ears and whiskers" if we carry this thought on to it's logical conclusion then we must toss "Come Come Ye Saints" out of the Hymnbook!

[Alf O'Mega]

I believe the idea is expressed in the D&C (quoted there, actually) . . .

. . . in a verse dependent on Clayton's journal, so it's not really corroborative, is it?

. . . as well as the Pearl of Great Price, a canonized, thus official, source. Moses 1 discusses spiritual and natural eyes with clarifications. A spiritual and physical creation is also discussed. In short, this statement of the prophet seems to clarify other scriptures.

If you know of a verse in Moses 1 saying that spirit is matter, I'll thank you to cite it.

Where do you get the impression that the phrase "I began the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egyptâ??a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them" occurred before any written translation?

I didn't mean to say that it occurred before any written translation, just that it was a preliminary pronouncement about the contents of the papyri. There's no evidence he produced anything more than this summary in the case of the "writings of Joseph of Egypt."

[why me]

I still don't understand why a fraudster would be taking in by such a fraud. For example, if JS was a fraud and made up the gold plates story, for sure he would have smelled a similiar hoax in the kinderhook plates. He would have laughed the whole thing off as a good copycat con.

By attempting to see the plates as credible, we can see that JS was interested in the plates as a verification of the book of mormon. But I really cannot see him falling for such a con if he himself was a con artist.

[oceanblue]

I still don't understand why a fraudster would be taking in by such a fraud. For example, if JS was a fraud and made up the gold plates story, for sure he would have smelled a similiar hoax in the kinderhook plates. He would have laughed the whole thing off as a good copycat con.

By attempting to see the plates as credible, we can see that JS was interested in the plates as a verification of the book of mormon. But I really cannot see him falling for such a con if he himself was a con artist.

I don't agree at all. An actor can't take his makeup off midshow. It ruins the whole play.

If Joseph did make everything up and his credibility lies in the ability to translate ancient records, he was in a rock and a hard place. If they're fake he gets caught. If they're real...he's not the prophet he claims to be, right? He doesn't know what to do here. Best bet is to take them on the pretense of analyzing them. But then never issue a translation. It's an ugly win, but a W still.

Also consider that many a con man has eventually come to believe the lies. It happens all the time. Even if he invented the whole story of plates and Moroni, etc., he may have truly believed he was a prophet. And may have truly believed he could translate a legit ancient record based on his connection with God and the record he had already released. Who know? All I will say is that Joseph taking the plates at all seems right in line with him keeping the makeup on. It was just the next act in the same play.

[LifeOnaPlate]

. . . in a verse dependent on Clayton's journal, so it's not really corroborative, is it?

By saying "quoted there" I was acknowledging your implication that the particular entry comes from Clayton's journal. (I'm not sure if it does or not, personally, but added the parenthesis to point out I wasn't using the D&C verse as corroborative.) Sorry for any confusion.

If you know of a verse in Moses 1 saying that spirit is matter, I'll thank you to cite it.

Moses one discusses eyes in both a spiritual and physical sense. I believe this would be a case of a verse leading to further commentary by Joseph Smith. I'd need to check all the dates, etc, though. It's an interesting question; one that I haven't looked into much, regarding that D&C verse.

I didn't mean to say that it occurred before any written translation, just that it was a preliminary pronouncement about the contents of the papyri. There's no evidence he produced anything more than this summary in the case of the "writings of Joseph of Egypt."

Not that we currently have, anyway. Maybe that Kinderhook translation lays hidden away somewhere.

I don't agree at all. An actor can't take his makeup off midshow. It ruins the whole play. If Joseph did make everything up and his credibility lies in the ability to translate ancient records, he was in a rock and a hard place. If they're fake he gets caught. If they're real...he's not the prophet he claims to be, right? He doesn't know what to do here. Best bet is to take them on the pretense of analyzing them. But then never issue a translation. It's an ugly win, but a W still. Also consider that many a con man has eventually come to believe the lies. It happens all the time. Even if he invented the whole story of plates and Moroni, etc., he may have truly believed he was a prophet. And may have truly believed he could translate a legit ancient record based on his connection with God and the record he had already released. Who know? All I will say is that Joseph taking the plates at all seems right in line with him keeping the makeup on. It was just the next act in the same play.

It is just as plausible, however, to see Joseph as open to the idea of additional records based on his actual translations of actual records, which discuss peoples finding additional records, and promises of future records to come, etc. So we're back to that whole problem about what the evidence does and does not tell us and why.

[why me]

I don't agree at all. An actor can't take his makeup off midshow. It ruins the whole play.

If Joseph did make everything up and his credibility lies in the ability to translate ancient records, he was in a rock and a hard place. If they're fake he gets caught. If they're real...he's not the prophet he claims to be, right? He doesn't know what to do here. Best bet is to take them on the pretense of analyzing them. But then never issue a translation. It's an ugly win, but a W still.

I don't think that you are correct in this case. If JS was a con artist, he would have forseen the con and stayed clear of it. No conman wants to be found out. He only had to express doubts about authenticity and leave it at that or have the characters sent off to specialist for confirmation. No one would have blamed him. Buy attempting a translation, he could only lose since the plates were false and con against JS. He was not a stupid guy.

By giving them some listen, he perhaps had hoped that such a find would validate the book of mormon. He believed them until his sixth sense got the better of him.

[oceanblue]

I don't think that you are correct in this case. If JS was a con artist, he would have forseen the con and stayed clear of it. No conman wants to be found out. He only had to express doubts about authenticity and leave it at that or have the characters sent off to specialist for confirmation. No one would have blamed him. Buy attempting a translation, he could only lose since the plates were false and con against JS. He was not a stupid guy.

By giving them some listen, he perhaps had hoped that such a find would validate the book of mormon. He believed them until his sixth sense got the better of him.

Well, there's no way to know, now is there? I still say it makes more sense for a con man to have to roll the dice on this than would a true prophet of God.

[T-Shirt]

Here are a few facts that are often ignored or glossed over by the critics:

William Clayton was the Church clerk at the time of the Kinderhook Plates episode, he was not Joseph's secretary, that was the job of Willard Richards, Willard was responsible for writing down the things that Joseph said. Willard Richards wrote nothing concerning the Kinderhook plates.

There is no evidence that William Clayton's diary entry was something that he heard from Joseph Smith himself or just rumor.

Parley P. Pratt's account and William Clayton's account contradict each other. Parley was present when the plates were compared to the Egyptian papyri, indicating that Clayton's account was likely an honest mistake based on rumor and speculation.

When shown the plates Joseph said, "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, [i think] that by the help of revelation would be able to translate them."

However, they were not left.

Wilbur Fugate, one of the creators of the plates said, "[Joseph] would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England." If Joseph thought they were authentic, why would he ask for this verification?

On about May 4th, three days after William Clayton's journal entry, John Taylor, editor of the Times and Seasons, wrote in his editorial:

"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 with them for translation, if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it."

A translation was never produced or printed.

Critics claim that this whole thing was done for the express purpose of exposing Jospeh Smith. This makes no sense for several reasons. First, the creators of the plates did not admit they were a fake until 35 years later when Joseph was long dead and the saints were in Utah. Second, These men tried to sell the plates to a museum after Joseph Smith passed on them. The museum was not interested either. It seems their motive was money. Third, the creators never claimed to have fooled Joseph Smith, even after admitting they were fake.

All the best,

T-Shirt

[Rommelator]

I think that it is undeniable that Joseph Smith was interested in the Kinderhook plates. He may have even been on the road towards a translation, which is what got everyone excited about a possible translation. However, the fact that no translation was offered and that Joseph had his doubts as to the veracity of the plates, I think is evidence that he quickly dropped the project and did not fall for it. If anything, this hurts Joseph the scholar, not Joseph the Seer, since he possibly attempted to "translate" by conventional means and not revelation.

I think Life has a good point. If Joseph was serious about this, why nothing from him personally? Why no first hand statements? Joseph got practically gitty over the Book of Abraham scrolls, but is silent on the Kinderhook Plates.

[wenglund]

I still don't understand why a fraudster would be taking in by such a fraud. For example, if JS was a fraud and made up the gold plates story, for sure he would have smelled a similiar hoax in the kinderhook plates. He would have laughed the whole thing off as a good copycat con.

By attempting to see the plates as credible, we can see that JS was interested in the plates as a verification of the book of mormon. But I really cannot see him falling for such a con if he himself was a con artist.

With all due respect, your reasoning only works if one accepts the premise that con artists are impervious to being conned. I don't happen to accept that premise because I am aware of not a few real-life circumstances where cons were conned. In fact, one of my favorite movies (The Sting) is based on that happening.

Your reasoning also only works if one believes that a given con is being conned and/or has reason to believe s/he is being conned. Were, say, the kinderhook hoaxsters to have at some later time been presented, themsleves, with purported ancient plates, they may not care whether the plates were authentic or not (for all they know they could be). Instead, they may see them as a way of credibilizing their own hoax, and for that reason tacitly accept as authentic the purported ancient plates.

This is not to suggest that I believe Joseph to be a con artist. I don't. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I am speaking to the validity of your argument, and not to the character of Joseph. Its just that to me there are far more rational and compelling arguments against the proposition that Joseph was a con.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-