The founding claims

The Kinderhook Plates

He translated a forgery. The Church published the proof itself.

The point in one sentence

In 1843 three men forged a set of engraved brass plates as a prank, Joseph Smith's journal records that he "translated a portion" and identified the author as a descendant of Pharaoh, and modern testing confirmed the plates were a nineteenth century fabrication.

April 1843

Three men in Kinderhook, Illinois forge six brass plates and stage their discovery in a burial mound.

May 1, 1843

Joseph Smith’s journal records that he has "translated a portion" and names the author a descendant of Pharaoh.

1855

Wilburn Fugate confesses in writing that the whole thing was "a HUMBUG."

1980

Laboratory testing shows the characters were etched with nitric acid into a nineteenth century alloy.

August 1981

The Church publishes the confirmation itself, in the Ensign, under the word "Hoax."

The evidence

April 1843: Wilburn Fugate, Robert Wiley, and Bridge Whitton staged the discovery of six engraved plates in an Illinois burial mound. Fugate later confessed it was "a HUMBUG, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton and myself."
Joseph Smith's journal, kept by scribe William Clayton, May 1, 1843: "President Joseph 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt." Read the journal page on Joseph Smith Papers
1980: a Northwestern University materials scientist tested the surviving plate. The characters were etched with nitric acid, not engraved, and the alloy was nineteenth century. BYU Religious Studies Center
The Church published the confirmation itself, in the Ensign, August 1981, under the headline "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax."

Be fair about the limits

The Church's current position is that Joseph "apparently did not attempt a revelatory translation as he had done with the Book of Mormon plates, but rather appears to have compared the symbols" against reference works, and "quickly lost interest."

That is a reasonable reading. He did not buy the plates, did not produce a manuscript, and did not invoke revelation the way he did elsewhere. That is the honest reading, and it belongs on the record first.

The common rebuttals

"He never claimed revelation for Kinderhook." Granted, and that is the Church's own position. But here is what it does not escape: the reference system he used to make that confident, wrong reading was the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, the very apparatus he built during the Book of Abraham project. He used it on the Kinderhook plates in one sitting, and on the Egyptian papyri for years.

The same character-matching system that produced a confident reading of forged gibberish underlies a book that is now scripture.

That is the whole argument. Not that he was fooled, but what being fooled reveals about the method.

Why this should make you question

Kinderhook alone does not sink anything. Its value is narrower and still real: it is a documented case where Joseph Smith looked at characters we now know are meaningless, produced a specific historical claim about their author, and was simply wrong. The test is not whether he was fooled once. It is what that reveals about the reliability of the method he used on the texts that became scripture.

This page is part of a 76-topic library. Every claim links to its source, most of them the Church’s own. Read it on the full site or browse every topic.