The Short Answer
The Kinderhook plates were a nineteenth-century hoax. Joseph Smith briefly examined them, and William Clayton recorded a tentative interpretation of one character. Joseph did not produce a finished translation, publish a revelation about the plates, or add a text from them to scripture.
The Greek Psalter story is weaker evidence. It comes from Henry Caswall, a hostile visitor who later published his own account of showing Joseph a Greek text. No independent contemporary witness confirms Caswall’s dialogue.
Neither story should be waved away. Neither is the clean, controlled test often described online.
Say This in Thirty Seconds
“The Kinderhook plates were fake, and Joseph did examine them. A clerk recorded that he thought one character referred to a descendant of Ham, possibly after comparing it with material he already had. But Joseph never completed or canonized a translation. The Greek Psalter story rests on the later account of the man trying to expose him. These incidents may raise questions about Joseph’s judgment, but they do not document a failed Book of Mormon-style translation.”
Keep the Claims Separate
| Story | What is well supported | What is not established |
|---|
| Kinderhook plates | The artifacts were a hoax and Joseph examined them | A completed prophetic translation |
| Greek Psalter | Caswall said he tested Joseph with a Greek text | Independent confirmation of the reported exchange |
Questions That Slow the Claim Down
- What exact statement are you treating as Joseph’s translation?
- Was it written by Joseph, published by him, or canonized?
- Is a tentative identification the same claim as receiving a revealed text?
- For the Psalter story, what source exists besides Caswall?
- Would you accept a hostile participant’s later account as conclusive in another historical dispute?
Do Not Say
- “Joseph never saw the Kinderhook plates.” He did.
- “Nothing was interpreted.” Clayton recorded a tentative interpretation.
- “The Greek Psalter incident definitely never happened.” The source is weak, not nonexistent.
- “A failed attempt would not matter.” It would matter. The dispute is over what Joseph actually claimed and did.
Starting Sources
The Claim at Its Strongest
In 1843, men near Kinderhook, Illinois, manufactured engraved metal plates and arranged for Latter-day Saints to bring them to Joseph Smith. William Clayton’s journal says Joseph had translated part of the plates and identified their subject as a descendant of Ham.
In a separate story, Anglican minister Henry Caswall claimed that he showed Joseph a Greek Psalter and watched him misidentify it.
Critics combine the stories into a simple argument: present Joseph with a known text or fabricated artifact, let him claim translation ability, and expose the result as false.
That argument would be strong if both incidents gave us a clear prophetic claim, a controlled test, and a documented translation. The surviving evidence is not that tidy.
The Kinderhook Plates Were a Hoax
This point is settled. The plates were not ancient. One of the men involved later described how the group made and engraved them. Modern examination confirmed their nineteenth-century manufacture.
Latter-day Saints do not need to defend the plates as authentic. Older defenses that treated them as ancient should be retired.
What Joseph Actually Did
The strongest contemporary evidence is William Clayton’s May 1, 1843 journal entry. Clayton wrote that Joseph had translated a portion and identified the record with a descendant of Ham through Pharaoh.
That entry matters. It cannot honestly be replaced with “Joseph ignored the plates.”
At the same time:
- the statement is Clayton’s report, not a translation manuscript in Joseph’s hand,
- no extended text was produced,
- Joseph did not publish a translation,
- no revelation authenticating the plates is known,
- and nothing from the plates entered Latter-day Saint scripture.
The historical question is narrower than either side often makes it: was Clayton describing a revelatory translation, a preliminary opinion, or an attempt to match one symbol with existing reference material?
The Character Comparison
The interpretation Clayton recorded resembles language associated with a character in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, a document already available in Joseph’s circle.
That creates a plausible non-revelatory explanation. Joseph may have compared a character on the plates with a character and explanation in material he possessed. If so, he was making an antiquarian inference from unreliable tools, not dictating a revealed record.
This does not prove Joseph’s judgment was sound. It helps identify the kind of claim the evidence can support.
Why the Missing Translation Matters
Joseph’s major translation claims generated texts. The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Bible revision, and his work with the papyri all left substantial records that can be examined.
The Kinderhook episode produced no comparable result.
A person can be mistaken about an artifact without issuing a prophetic revelation about it. If a critic wants the plates to falsify a specific spiritual gift, the critic must first show that Joseph invoked that gift and delivered a result.
Clayton’s word “translated” supplies evidence, but it does not answer every question about process, confidence, or status.
The Greek Psalter Account
Henry Caswall was an opponent of the Restoration. He visited Nauvoo in 1842 and later published a story in which he said he showed Joseph an old Greek Psalter while withholding its identity.
According to Caswall, Joseph briefly examined the book and connected it with Egyptian writing. Caswall then announced the deception and treated Joseph’s answer as proof of fraud.
The difficulty is the source base:
- the dialogue survives through Caswall,
- Caswall was both the tester and the narrator,
- his account was published as anti-Mormon literature,
- and no independent contemporary record confirms the exchange as he told it.
Bias does not automatically make a source false. It does mean that the account needs corroboration before it can bear the weight of a conclusive test.
Two Bad Responses
”Both stories are completely fabricated”
That goes too far. The Kinderhook encounter is documented, and Caswall did publish his allegation.
”Both are laboratory tests of prophetic translation”
That also goes too far. There was no agreed test protocol, no recorded translation in Joseph’s hand, and no finished result. In the Psalter case, the critic controls the only surviving narrative.
What the Evidence Can Support
A careful critic can argue:
- Joseph showed interest in questionable artifacts,
- Clayton believed Joseph offered an interpretation,
- and Joseph may have been too willing to speculate about ancient writing.
A careful believer can answer:
- an interest or preliminary opinion is not automatically revelation,
- the Kinderhook record never became an accepted translation,
- the method may have been character comparison rather than claimed inspiration,
- and Caswall’s uncorroborated story cannot establish its own accuracy.
Those positions address the evidence without pretending it says more than it does.
Debate Sequence
- Admit immediately that the Kinderhook plates were fake.
- Ask for the exact statement alleged to be Joseph’s completed translation.
- Read Clayton’s journal rather than paraphrasing it.
- Distinguish a clerk’s report from a published or canonized text.
- Ask whether the character-comparison explanation fits the limited result.
- Treat Caswall as a source to evaluate, not a verdict to repeat.
- Concede that poor judgment would still be a fair criticism if the tentative reading was Joseph’s.
A Useful Comparison
Suppose a scholar is shown a fake inscription and offers a quick guess based on a reference book. The guess may reveal overconfidence. It does not become a failed peer-reviewed translation that the scholar never produced.
That comparison does not clear Joseph in advance. It keeps the charge proportional to the act.
A Balanced Conclusion
The Kinderhook plates expose the danger of overconfident historical claims, including some old Latter-day Saint defenses. Joseph examined a fraudulent artifact, and a close associate recorded a tentative interpretation. The episode deserves discussion.
It does not give us a completed, revealed translation that can be placed beside the Book of Mormon and shown false.
The Greek Psalter allegation is still less decisive because it depends on the later account of the person staging the test. It can inform an assessment of Joseph, but it should not be presented as independently verified history.
Sources and Further Study
