Kinderhook Plates Hoax

What the Kinderhook Plates Really Were: A Written Summary of an LDS Video

This is a written summary of a YouTube video explaining the Kinderhook plates and why this episode of Church history is often misunderstood. The creator walks through what happened in Kinderhook, Illinois in 1843, what Joseph Smith actually did (and did not do), and why common criticisms about the Kinderhook plates frequently rely on assumptions that don’t match the historical sources. The overall theme is simple: when you step back and look at the full picture, the Kinderhook plates controversy is “much ado about nothing,” and it does not undermine Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission.

TL;DR: Why the Kinderhook Plates Don’t Disprove Joseph Smith

The Kinderhook plates were a proven 19th-century hoax, and Joseph Smith never pursued them as scripture, never bought them, and never published a translation. At most, he briefly compared some characters on the plates to materials connected to the Book of Abraham era. The best historical evidence shows the episode was quickly dropped and later exaggerated by critics.

Watch the Video About the Kinderhook Plates

Kinderhook Plates Explained: What Happened in 1843 in Illinois?

The video begins by explaining why the Kinderhook plates matter in online criticism of the Church: many Latter-day Saints have never heard of them, but critics frequently point to them as a “gotcha.” The creator argues that this is a case where people zoom in on a small detail and miss the full context—like mistaking part of an elephant for a wall.

According to the video, the Kinderhook plates were discovered in spring 1843 in Kinderhook, Pike County, Illinois, about 70 miles south of Nauvoo. A group of men dug into a mound after one man claimed he repeatedly dreamed of hidden treasure. They unearthed six small, bell-shaped metal plates with characters resembling “hieroglyphics,” bound together with a ring through holes near the top.

Some Latter-day Saints who witnessed the discovery borrowed the plates and brought them to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. The plates remained there for only a short time—about five days—and then left Nauvoo.

Were the Kinderhook Plates Ancient? Why the Evidence Says No

A major focus of the video is the question: Were the Kinderhook plates authentic ancient records? The creator points to historical and scientific findings showing they were not.

The Hoax Confession and the Long Confusion

The video cites an important historical detail: in 1879, Wilbur Fugate (connected to the original discovery) wrote that the plates had been a hoax and described how they were made. The creator notes that the confession came much later, possibly because the hoax failed to gain traction and because admitting fraud earlier would have ruined attempts to sell the plates.

For a long time, the actual plates were lost. Then, in 1920, an original plate surfaced in the Chicago Historical Society, identifiable by a nick that matched existing facsimiles. That made direct testing possible.

Scientific Testing: Etched Characters and 19th-Century Metal

The video highlights that later scientific examination clarified the issue:

The characters were found to be etched rather than engraved (a key indicator of modern manufacture).
The metal alloy matched common 19th-century materials, not ancient metallurgy.

These findings made it clear that the Kinderhook plates were not of ancient origin. They were a fabricated artifact from the 1800s.

Did Joseph Smith Translate the Kinderhook Plates?

The second major question critics raise is: Did Joseph Smith translate the Kinderhook plates? The video’s answer is that no formal translation was produced, no revelation was published, and the historical sources do not support the critical narrative.

Joseph Smith Didn’t Buy the Plates or Pursue Them

One of the most important claims in the video is that Joseph Smith never tried to obtain the plates. The presenter quotes historian Stanley Kimball (from an Ensign article) explaining that, despite initial curiosity in Nauvoo, the plates were allowed to leave the Saints without fanfare, and there is no record Joseph attempted to purchase them—even though the owner was willing to sell.

“Nothing Was Ever Published” Is the Point Critics Skip

The video repeatedly emphasizes a simple fact: even if there was curiosity, the episode did not develop into a translation project. No translation was ever published. Nothing became scripture. Nothing entered the Church’s canon. The issue faded quickly in real time.

The Famous “I Have Translated a Portion” Quote: Where It Actually Came From

Critics often rely on a statement found in History of the Church (published in 1909) that reads as if Joseph Smith said, “I have translated a portion” of the Kinderhook plates and that they contained a history connected to a descendant of Ham through Pharaoh.

Why That Quote Isn’t Joseph Smith Speaking in His Own Voice

The video explains that this line is frequently misunderstood because of how Church histories were compiled in the 19th century. According to Stanley Kimball, the wording in History of the Church is actually taken from the journal of William Clayton. When the history was compiled, editors often wrote in the first person, even when the original source was someone else’s journal.

The creator notes a key detail: Clayton’s original wording was not “I have translated,” but rather, “President J. has translated a portion.” In later editing and reprinting, this was reshaped into first-person narrative, which created confusion for modern readers.

What Joseph Smith Likely Did Instead: Comparing Characters, Not Revealing Scripture

So what actually happened? The video draws on Don Bradley’s research presented at a FairMormon conference. The most plausible explanation offered is that Joseph Smith briefly compared a prominent character from the Kinderhook plates to documents associated with the Book of Abraham era, specifically the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL).

Why the GAEL Matters to the Kinderhook Plates Conversation

The video describes how one character on the plates looked “boat-like,” and Bradley’s research shows a similar “boat” character appears in the GAEL with interpretive notes that resemble phrases in Clayton’s journal entry. The presenter points out the striking parallels, such as:

Language about “kingly power” through Pharaoh
References to a “ruler/possessor of heaven and earth”

This suggests Clayton’s statement may have reflected an informal comparison to existing notes—not a prophetic translation of an ancient record.

An Eyewitness Report: Joseph Compared the Plates With His “Egyptian Alphabet”

The video also cites a non–Latter-day Saint eyewitness account published in the New York Herald, claiming Joseph Smith compared the plates with his “Egyptian alphabet.” The witness misunderstood the source material and assumed it was connected to the Book of Mormon. The presenter clarifies that the comparison likely involved Book of Abraham-era documents, not an official Book of Mormon translation process.

Faithful Takeaway: The Kinderhook Plates Episode Is Not a Prophetic “Test”

The video closes with a strong framing: critics often claim the Kinderhook plates prove Joseph Smith was a false prophet—summarized by a line like, “Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates.” But the creator responds that this wrongly assumes Joseph was acting prophetically in the episode at all.

One quote highlighted from Joseph Smith is: “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” In other words, casually comparing symbols is not the same as producing scripture by revelation.

Don Bradley’s Conclusion: “An Enthusiastic Yet Amateur Linguist”

The summary ends with Don Bradley’s concluding insight (as quoted in the video):

“For over a century, many have argued as to whether the Kinderhook plates episode revealed Joseph Smith as a true or false prophet. Yet a closer examination of the relevant historical sources reveals Joseph Smith acting neither as an inspired prophet nor as a fraudulent imposter, instead it reveals an enthusiastic yet amateur linguist.”

Updated: Modern Research Conclusion

Modern research has shown, that Don Bradley’s conclusion is also incorrect. Their was likely no amateur linguist project associated with the supposed translation of the Kinderhook Plates Either. The Egyptian Grammar project wasn’t about translation, it was about pure language and symbolic meaning.

What was interpreted as a translation was actually a mis-assumption by William Clayton, assuming that a document from the GAEL notebook was Joseph Smith’s translation of the kinderhook plates.

Why This Matters for Latter-day Saints Studying the Kinderhook Plates

The presenter returns to the opening “elephant” analogy: this is an issue that looks alarming only when people isolate a single sentence and ignore the broader evidence. When the full record is considered, the Kinderhook plates were a hoax, Joseph Smith did not pursue them as scripture, and the episode does not weaken faith in the Restoration.

Key Points to Remember About the Kinderhook Plates

The Kinderhook plates were a proven 19th-century hoax.
Joseph Smith did not buy the plates and did not pursue them.
No translation was published and no scripture came from the episode.
The controversial “translation” quote traces back to William Clayton’s journal and later editorial history.
The best evidence suggests Joseph briefly compared characters, not received revelation.

Additional Resources Mentioned in the Video About the Kinderhook Plates

Stanley B. Kimball, “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a 19th-Century Hoax,” Ensign, August 1981
Don Bradley, FairMormon Conference (2011) presentation on Kinderhook plates research
Letter To My Wife – 2026