The CES Letter presents the Kinderhook Plates as a devastating example of Joseph Smith being exposed as a false prophet. The argument relies heavily on shock value. Most Church members know little or nothing about the Kinderhook Plates because they were an obscure, insignificant episode that produced no scripture, no doctrine, and no lasting influence. Critics often use it as a “gotcha” moment, assuming unfamiliarity equals guilt. The CES Letter leans into that assumption.
What the Letter does not explain is that Joseph Smith never translated the Kinderhook Plates. When the plates were brought to Nauvoo in 1843, he examined them briefly and compared their characters to notes and materials he already had from the 1830s during his work on the Book of Abraham. He produced no translation, dictated no text, and published nothing based on the plates. Even one of the original conspirators later emphasized that Joseph did not translate the plates, undercutting the central accusation.
Later claims that Joseph “translated” the Kinderhook Plates grew out of rumor, assumptions by observers, and an editorial mistake in early Church history. A clerk’s private journal entry was later presented in the first person, making it appear as if Joseph himself had claimed a translation. When the original documents are examined, the supposed Kinderhook Plates translation traces back to older notebook material, not to the forged artifacts. The CES Letter relies on this misunderstanding and presents it as settled evidence, despite the primary sources pointing elsewhere.
Here are questions about the Kinderhook Plates that remain unanswered by the CES Letter:
How Much Blind Faith to Believe Joseph Smith Translated the Kinderhook Plates?
The Kinderhook Forgery and the Translation That Never Happened
Why “I Translated” Became A First Person Quote
Did Joseph Even Translate the Kinderhook Plates?
Why are the Kinderhook Plates Treated as a Prophetic Test?
Actual Historic Account of the Kinderhook Plates
A Chronological Examination of the Record
The claim that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook plates has been repeated for generations. Yet when the historical record is examined and in order, the evidence for any real translation is remarkably thin. To believe that he translated them, one has to deny the actual first hand historical evidence and believe that the personal assumption of one man is the actual truth.
What follows is not speculation, but a chronological look at what the documents actually say — and just as importantly, what they do not say.
1835 — The Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL)
Eight years before the Kinderhook plates ever appeared, Joseph Smith and associates worked on a notebook commonly referred to as the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.
This 1835 project includes copied characters with layered explanations, including language about royal lineage, Pharaoh, and “possessor of heaven and earth.” The wording found in this notebook becomes significant later, because it is the same language William Clayton recorded in 1843 regarding what he believed was the supposed translation of the Kinderhook plates.
The key point: this material already existed in 1835. It was not created in response to the Kinderhook plates.
April 23, 1843 — The Staged Discovery
Six small metal plates were reportedly discovered in a burial mound near Kinderhook, Illinois. The excavation was publicly staged. Burned rock, charcoal, ashes, human bones, and six bell-shaped plates with characters were described.
Decades later, Wilbur Fugate would confess that the discovery was a hoax and explain how the plates were fabricated and planted.
At the time, however, news of metal plates caused excitement, especially among those already familiar with the Book of Mormon. They were excited to have more evidence of ancient metal records.
Late April 1843 — The Plates Arrive in Nauvoo
The plates were brought to Nauvoo around April 29. They were not placed on public display in the way the Egyptian papyri had been years earlier. They were shown privately to Joseph Smith and others.
There is no o record of them being an ancient record. No record of Joseph purchasing them. There is no record of him commissioning scribes. There is no record of dictation. No witnesses of a translation. And no written translation.
May 1, 1843 — The Critical Date
Two important things happened on May 1.
1. William Clayton’s Journal Entry
William Clayton was a financial clerk for the church. He recorded in his personal journal that:
“President J. has translated a portion…”
He then described language about a descendant of Ham through Pharaoh, and one who received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.
This entry becomes the entire foundation for the claim that Joseph translated the plates.
But several problems immediately appear:
- This is Clayton’s personal journal, not Joseph’s.
- Clayton does not say he witnessed a translation.
- Clayton does not describe a process.
- Clayton does not record a manuscript.
- Clayton does not claim Joseph dictated text.
There is no evidence Clayton was even present when Joseph examined the plates. In fact, the day that Clayton wrote this journal entry, Joseph Smith “rode out” to conduct church business.
More importantly, the wording Clayton recorded clearly comes from the text in the 1835 GAEL notebook.
The resemblance is difficult to ignore. William Clayton very well may have come to his assumption of what he thought was the translation of the plates, while in Joseph Smith’s office when Joseph Smith was not even around.
2. The Times and Seasons Statement
On that same day, May 1, the Times and Seasons printed:
“Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained.”
If Joseph had publicly translated even a portion, why would the Church’s own paper say his opinion was not yet known?
The newspaper gives no hint of a translation.
Joseph’s Personal Journal — Silence
Joseph Smith’s own journal from this period makes only one brief reference to the plates.
On May 7, it records that several gentlemen visited concerning the plates, and that Joseph sent for his Hebrew Bible and Lexicon.
That is it.
No translation.
No dictated text.
No proclamation.
No manuscript.
No entry claiming he translated anything.
If Joseph had truly translated a portion, this absence is striking.
May 7, 1843 — Hebrew Bible and Lexicon
When visitors came asking about the plates, Joseph requested his Hebrew Bible and lexicon.
This suggests comparison and study, not revelation.
When Joseph translated scripture — the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, revelations in Doctrine and Covenants — there are scribes, dictated text, and preserved manuscripts.
None of that exists here.
The Clayton Assumption Theory
Consider the timeline:
- The GAEL notebook from 1835 already contained language about Ham, Pharaoh, and royal lineage.
- The Kinderhook plates included a character that resembled one in the GAEL.
- Clayton was not involved in the 1835 project and may not have understood its origin.
- Clayton wrote his journal entry on May 1.
- Joseph’s journal does not mention translation.
- The newspaper says Joseph’s opinion was not yet known.
There is no record that Clayton saw Joseph perform a translation. There is no record that Clayton saw Joseph dictating text.
It is entirely plausible that Clayton saw the GAEL notebook near the plates, saw similar characters, and assumed that what he read in the notebook was Joseph’s translation of the plates.
His journal entry reads like a conclusion, not a witnessed event. His conclusion was likely then shared with others including Parley P. Pratt.
1909 — How the Confusion Became Cemented
When the multi-volume History of the Church was compiled decades later, Clayton’s third-person journal entry was rewritten into first-person narrative voice.
“I translated…”
This editorial decision made Clayton’s wording appear as though Joseph personally declared it.
That single editorial transformation did more to shape the modern accusation than anything that happened in 1843.
The Hoax Confirmed
In the 1870s, Wilbur Fugate described how the plates were created and planted. Later scientific testing confirmed acid etching consistent with 19th-century fabrication.
If Joseph had truly translated the plates as ancient, where is the manuscript?
Where is the dictated text?
Where is the proclamation?
Where is the doctrinal development?
There is none.
What the Record Actually Shows
What we can say with confidence:
- Joseph examined the plates.
- He compared characters.
- He consulted reference materials.
- His journal records only one brief mention.
- The Church newspaper did not report a translation.
- No translation manuscript exists.
- The only “translation” reference comes from Clayton’s journal.
- Clayton’s wording mirrors language from an earlier notebook.
- Later editorial rewriting amplified the misunderstanding.
To maintain the claim that Joseph translated the Kinderhook plates requires elevating one ambiguous clerk’s journal line above every other contemporary record — including Joseph’s own journal and the official newspaper.
The more carefully the chronology is examined, the harder it becomes to sustain the accusation.
The evidence does not show Joseph translating the Kinderhook plates.
At most, it shows brief examination, comparison, and curiosity.
And the burden of proof for a translation claim remains unmet.
Kinderhook Plates – Sources and Context
-
Anti-Anti Mormon – Kinderhook Plates
https://antiantimormon.com/the-kinderhook-plates/
The critical framing that claims Joseph Smith translated the plates. -
FAIR Latter-day Saints – Kinderhook Plates
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Kinderhook_Plates
Detailed examination of the original documents, editorial errors, and later assumptions. -
Debunking CES Letter – Kinderhook Plates
https://debunking-cesletter.com/kinderhook-plates-translator-claims/
Focused analysis showing how the translation claim developed despite the absence of any produced text. -
Why Mormons – Why did Joseph Smith Translate the Kinderhook Plates?
https://whymormons.net/kinderhook-plates-translation/
Scholarly articles addressing the historical context, the fraud, and the documentary trail. -
Church of Jesus Christ – Gospel Topics: Kinderhook Plates
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/kinderhook-plates
Official summary outlining what happened, what did not happen, and why the episode matters so little doctrinally. - Mormonr – Did Joseph Smith Translate the Kinderhook Plates?
https://mormonr.org/qnas/a9l1T/the_kinderhook_plates - Book of Mormon Evidence
https://bookofmormonevidence.org/did-joseph-smith-translate-the-kinderhook-plates-and-are-they-authentic/