"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.
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." (“History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 5”, Smith Joseph and Roberts B. H., Deseret Book Company, 1909)
The sort of “prophecy” of a type that JS produced, such as with Zelph. Made up, short descriptions, off the top of his head. Never to be mentioned again or referenced.
The Kinderhook plates have been proven, without a doubt, to be forgeries. The chicken scratches on them have no meaning, whatsoever. So, what’s up with the above “translation”?
If Smith were acting as he claimed, as a prophet receiving revelation from God, what is revealed here? Nothing but a false prophet who just made up a translation. BUSTED!
Accounting of Zelph:
“[o]n the top of this mound there was the appearance of three altars, which had been built of stone, one above another, according to the ancient order; and the ground was strewn over with human bones.” This prompted Kimball and the others to dig into the mound after sending for a shovel and a hoe. “At about one foot deep we discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire; and between two of his ribs we found an Indian arrow, which had evidently been the cause of his death. We took the leg and thigh bones and carried them along with us to Clay county. All four appeared sound.”
“*t was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph. This caused us to rejoice much, to think that God was so mindful of us as to show these things to his servant. Brother Joseph had enquired of the Lord and it was made known in a vision.”
gull·ible*
easily duped or cheated
Zelph:
Conclusion
LDS scholars have differed about the reliability of the accounts, and their relevance for Book of Mormon geography.[6] As Kenneth Godfrey observed:
If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion’s Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion’s Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation.
Furthermore, readers would be told that most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. The date of the man Zelph, too, remains unclear. Expressions such as “great struggles among the Lamanites,” if accurately reported, could refer to a period long after the close of the Book of Mormon narrative, as well as to the fourth century AD. None of the sources before the Willard Richards composition, however, actually say that Zelph died in battle with the Nephites, only that he died “in battle” when the otherwise unidentified people of Onandagus were engaged in great wars “among the Lamanites.”
Zelph was identified as a “Lamanite,” a label agreed on by all the accounts. This term might refer to the ethnic and cultural category spoken of in the Book of Mormon as actors in the destruction of the Nephites, or it might refer more generally to a descendant of the earlier Lamanites and could have been considered in 1834 as the equivalent of “Indian” (see, for example, D&C 3:18, 20; 10:48; 28:8; 32:2). Nothing in the accounts can settle the question of Zelph’s specific ethnic identity.[7]
Thus, it is unclear exactly what Joseph said. Many of the accounts date from many years after the event, and may have been shaded by later ideas in the writers. Joseph never had a chance to correct that which was published about the event, since he was killed before it was made public. The “Lamanites” may refer to native Amerindians generally, or Book of Mormon peoples specifically. If the latter are referred to, the events may well apply to post-Book of Mormon events, in which case it can tell us little about the geographic scope of the Book of Mormon text.
As always, the Book of Mormon text itself must remain our primary guide for what it says. If we wish to test Joseph’s claim that it was an ancient record, then others’ opinions about its contents—even Joseph Smith’s—are of limited value.
The kinderhook plates are interesting. But why would JS fall for his own con. It was exactly as his con, if he were a conartist, he would have seen through it immediately. And he did. He basically had very little to do with the kinderhook plates. He was much to busy to have cared.
