Illustration of the Kinderhook plates and the Nauvoo Neighbor broadside. Image via Book of Mormon Central
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) centers its history on the revelations received by Joseph Smith, particularly his translation of the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon. However, lesser-known episodes challenge the narrative of Smith’s consistent prophetic abilities. One such case involves the Kinderhook Plates, a set of allegedly ancient artifacts presented to Smith in 1843. Let’s examine some historical evidence suggesting Smith may have attempted, and ultimately abandoned, the translation of these plates.
In response to the criticisms and scrutiny directed at Mormonism, both from within and outside the faith community, LDS apologists often adopt a defensive stance to safeguard their beliefs from what they perceive as attacks or misinterpretations. This defensive posture may occasionally result in what some might view as linguistic contortions or mental gymnastics1A complex thought process or argument that is used to bend reality to suit something, such as a particular viewpoint..
In the late 1830s, followers of the nascent Latter Day Saint movement had been expelled from Missouri and were settling in and around modern-day Nauvoo, Illinois. By 1842, there was a congregation of around one hundred Latter Day Saints located several miles south of the village of Kinderhook. Two residents of Kinderhook, a farmer named Wilburn Fugate and a merchant named Robert Wiley, were proselytized by missionaries using the Parley Pratt tract A Voice of Warning, which used the phrase, “Truth would spring up out of the earth.” Fugate and Wiley decided to “prove the prophecy by way of a joke” and enlisted the help of Bridge Whitton, the village’s postmaster and blacksmith, to create a set of six small plates of brass. In an 1879 letter to James T. Cobb, Fugate wrote of their creation:
Bridge Whitton cut them (the plates) out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with rust.
The purpose in creating the hoax has been debated. It is frequently presented as being a trap for Joseph Smith, to expose his translating abilities or lack thereof. Local recollections indicate that the creators of the hoax never intended for the plates to be delivered to Smith for translation, but as more of a community prank.Fugate himself stated the purpose was “simply for a joke” on the Latter Day Saint congregants, and one of his sons said that rather than being an elaborate trap for Smith it was “a little plan by which to startle the natives.”
Presented: Exhibit “A” for the Official Church view.
In the first week of May 1843, six bell-shaped brass plates, engraved on both sides, were brought to Nauvoo by people wanting to see if Joseph Smith would translate them. These odd plates had supposedly been dug up a week or so earlier in Kinderhook, Illinois, about 60 miles to the south. Local news spread rapidly of their arrival, along with great anticipation for the presumed, forthcoming translation from Joseph. The Times and Seasons, then under the editorship of John Taylor, proclaimed confidently, “We have no doubt, however, but Mr. Smith will be able to translate.”
Charlotte Haven, a non-Mormon in Nauvoo at the time, claimed to have heard from an unidentified friend that Joseph “said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written” and “thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them. So a sequel to that holy book may soon be expected.”
In a letter to John Van Cott, Parley P. Pratt gave a brief report of the plates and ambiguously said, “you will hear more soon on this subject.” Another non-Mormon, who was there when Joseph Smith looked at the six plates, got the impression that Joseph believed he would “be able to decipher them,” and went on to tell the editor of the New York Herald, “You may expect something very remarkable pretty soon.”
Decades later, however, one of the men involved in digging them up confessed that the plates were a forgery, perpetrated with the intent of fooling Joseph Smith. Modern scientific testing of the one remaining plate confirms they were created using 19th century methods. So did Joseph fall for the hoax? Not quite. He briefly gave these artifacts due consideration, but did not try to acquire them, retain them, or ultimately find them of any value.
While some critics try to use this story as evidence that everything about Joseph Smith was a fraud, the historical evidence suggests that Joseph ultimately did not fall for the hoax—he never tried to purchase the plates, hire scribes, and go into translation mode, like he did with the ancient Egyptian papyri he had purchased in Ohio. He never produced a “Book of Kinderhook.” Whatever Joseph Smith may have thought of the Kinderhook plates, the Lord could not be fooled. God would not and did not reveal a translation of these bogus artifacts.
LDS apologists present their version of events, arguing that Joseph Smith never took the Kinderhook Plates seriously as authentic artifacts. According to their narrative, Smith’s translation efforts were seen as speculative at best, or even as a form of jest, rather than a genuine attempt to interpret ancient writings.
One of the primary arguments offered is the absence of any formal or official translation of the Kinderhook Plates by Joseph Smith. They point to the lack of documentation within official Mormon records detailing a comprehensive translation effort or the inclusion of the Kinderhook Plates in the canonized scriptures of the Latter-day Saints.
There are two sides to this “Evidence” coin.
While LDS apologists may assert that Joseph Smith never took the Kinderhook Plates seriously, their argument fails to address key historical facts. Firstly, the absence of a formal translation does not necessarily imply that Smith dismissed the plates as fraudulent.
Additionally, the lack of inclusion in official Mormon records or canonized scriptures does not inherently discredit the authenticity of the plates. It’s plausible that Smith’s translation efforts were inconclusive or that the plates were deemed non-canonical for reasons unrelated to their authenticity. Therefore, the absence of a formal translation or inclusion in official records does not conclusively support the argument that Smith never considered the Kinderhook Plates as authentic artifacts.
Confirmation Bias And the Power of Disconfirming Evidence.
Confirmation bias is our tendency to cherry-pick information that confirms our existing beliefs or ideas. Confirmation bias explains why two people with opposing views on a topic can see the same evidence and come away feeling validated by it. This cognitive bias is most pronounced in the case of ingrained, ideological, or emotionally charged views.
In fact, the historical record indicates that Smith initially showed interest in the plates and even attempted to translate them. William Clayton, Smith’s private secretary, recorded in his journal on May 1, 1843, that Smith examined the plates and began translating a portion of them. Then there is the letter from Apostle Parley P. Pratt dated May 7, 1843, mentioning the discovery of the plates and their supposed contents.
It wasn’t until 1980 that the plates were conclusively determined to be a hoax, based on scientific analysis of the etchings and metal composition. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Smith or other church leaders were aware of the fraudulent nature of the plates during Smith’s lifetime.
Overall, while speculation exists regarding whether Smith may have eventually realized the plates were fabricated, there is no concrete evidence to support this hypothesis.
Examining the counter-narratives.
Despite LDS arguments, the Kinderhook Plates episode presents a significant challenge to the narrative of Joseph Smith’s unerring prophetic abilities. Here, we see Smith attempting translation, but the project fizzles out.Notably, the Kinderhook Plates were later revealed to be a hoax. However, the historical record demonstrates Smith’s initial acceptance and even promotion of their legitimacy. This episode, along with the demonstrably false Book of Abraham translation, raises questions about the consistency of Smith’s revelations and the historical accuracy of the Church’s narrative.
In the annals of Mormon history, the Kinderhook Plates are contentious, shedding light on the complexities of Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims. Through meticulous research by ex-Mormon scholars like Jerald and Sandra Tanner, alongside historical documentation, a compelling narrative emerges, affirming Smith’s involvement in a preliminary “translation” of these enigmatic artifacts.
One crucial piece of evidence surfaces from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s trusted confidant and private secretary. Clayton’s entry dated May 1, 1843, provides a firsthand account of Smith’s encounter with the Kinderhook Plates. Clayton writes, “I have seen 6 brass plates… covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and 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” (William Clayton’s Journal, cited in Trials of Discipleship—The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, page 117).
This diary entry provides direct evidence that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated a portion of the Kinderhook Plates and made specific comments about their contents, including their association with a descendant of Ham and the king of Egypt. While the authenticity and accuracy of Smith’s translation remain a subject of debate, Clayton’s diary entry is widely regarded as a reliable historical source documenting Smith’s interactions with the Kinderhook Plates.
Latter-day Saint scholars have extensively written about William Clayton, emphasizing his significance as Joseph Smith’s trusted confidant and private secretary. Clayton’s meticulous record-keeping and firsthand accounts provide valuable insights into the life and teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. Scholars highlight Clayton’s role in documenting important events, revelations, and interactions within the early LDS Church.
Clayton’s journals, letters, and other writings offer valuable historical context and details that contribute to our understanding of Joseph Smith’s leadership, character, and spiritual experiences. His records shed light on key doctrinal developments, organizational changes within the church, and the personal challenges faced by early Latter-day Saints.
In addition to his role as a recorder of historical events, Latter-day Saint scholars also recognize Clayton’s deep personal connection to Joseph Smith. As Smith’s private secretary, Clayton had unique access to the prophet and was privy to many private conversations and moments of insight. His writings reflect not only the public activities of Joseph Smith but also provide glimpses into his personality, thoughts, and spiritual experiences.
Overall, Latter-day Saint scholars view William Clayton as a crucial figure in accurately recording the life of Joseph Smith and preserving the history of the early LDS Church. His writings continue to be studied and analyzed by scholars and historians interested in understanding the foundations of Mormonism and the legacy of its founding prophet.
Clayton’s account directly contradicts the Church’s sanitized narrative, confirming Smith’s involvement with the plates and his attempt at translation.
The Church’s historical publications offer further evidence. The Times and Seasons, a contemporary periodical, mentioned the Kinderhook Plates in its May 15th, 1843 issue (“History of the Church,” vol. 5, pp. 372-379). However, later Church publications downplay or omit the Kinderhook episode entirely. This inconsistency raises questions about the Church’s commitment to complete historical transparency.
Adding another layer of evidence, a letter written by Apostle Parley P. Pratt on May 7th, 1843, further supports the Kinderhook Plates’ existence. Pratt wrote, “Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of the mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah” (Letter of May 7, 1843). Pratt’s account aligns with Clayton’s description and reinforces the notion that Smith, at least initially, believed the plates were authentic.
These historical sources confirm Joseph Smith’s engagement with the Kinderhook Plates, providing compelling evidence that he provided a preliminary “translation” of these mysterious artifacts. The revelation of Smith’s involvement in this episode adds a fascinating layer to the ongoing discourse surrounding Mormon history, inviting further exploration and contemplation of his prophetic claims.
Ex-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner are American writers and researchers who publish archival and evidential materials about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Jerald passed away in 2006.
If Joseph Smith had not been murdered in June, 1844, it is very possible he might have published a complete “translation” of these bogus plates. Just a month before his death, it was reported that he was “busy in translating them. The new work which Jo. is about to issue as a translation of these plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon . . .” (Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844).
The fact that Joseph Smith was actually preparing a translation of the plates is verified by a broadside published by the Mormon newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, in June, 1843. On this broadside, containing facsimiles of the plates, we find the following: “The contents of the plates, together with a Fac-simile of the same, will be published in the Times and Seasons, as soon as the translation is completed.”
One Mormon scholar has argued that the “brevity” of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Kinderhook plates “precludes the possibility” that Joseph Smith’s “abilities as a translator” might be “called into question.” We cannot agree with this conclusion. Joseph Smith’s work on these fraudulent plates casts serious doubt upon his ability as a translator of Mormon scriptures like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
This LDS writer on Reddit provides considerable verbosity to support his opening paragraph:
The Kinderhook Plates and Joseph’s attempt at translating them is something that the critics love to bring up, but when they do, they’re banking on you not knowing what really happened. Once you do understand the actual circumstances, you’re more likely to shrug and move on than you are to lose your testimony. Not only was this event inconsequential to the history of the Church, but it doesn’t even crack the top ten of supposedly controversial things Joseph said or did.
If you have the patience to review the entire 5,000+ word entry … please indulge yourself.
In the above-linked Reddit discussion about the Kinderhook Plates and Joseph Smith’s translation, several counterarguments could be presented to challenge the claims made in the post. Here are some potential counterpoints:
Lack of Contemporary Documentation: The claim that Joseph Smith didn’t take the Kinderhook Plates seriously relies heavily on the fact that there’s no direct mention of them in official Mormon records from the time. However, it’s essential to recognize that the absence of explicit references in these records doesn’t automatically mean Smith wasn’t involved. Historical documents from that era are frequently incomplete or biased, so the lack of documentation alone doesn’t definitively disprove Smith’s connection to the plates.
Contextualizing Smith’s Statements: While it’s true that Joseph Smith’s comments about the Kinderhook Plates were made in a casual setting and were not part of a formal translation effort, it’s essential to contextualize these statements within the broader historical and social context. Smith’s playful demeanor and penchant for colorful language are well-documented aspects of his personality, but they do not preclude the possibility of genuine interest or consideration regarding the plates.
Contemporary Accounts and Testimonies: There are contemporary accounts, such as William Clayton’s diary entry, that provide firsthand evidence of Joseph Smith’s interaction with the Kinderhook Plates. These accounts lend credence to the idea that Smith did, in fact, make a preliminary attempt at translation, as indicated by Clayton’s description of Smith’s interpretation of the plates’ contents.
Historical Consistency: The argument that Smith’s translation of the Kinderhook Plates was simply a jest or speculative in nature lacks historical consistency with other instances of Smith’s translation efforts. Throughout his life, Smith claimed to have translated numerous ancient texts, including the Book of Mormon, portions of the Bible, and the Book of Abraham, which were taken seriously by his followers. It seems unlikely that Smith would approach the Kinderhook Plates with a significantly different attitude or methodology.
In conclusion, while there are undoubtedly valid questions and various interpretations regarding Joseph Smith’s supposed translation of the Kinderhook Plates, it’s crucial to carefully assess the evidence from diverse viewpoints and take into account the wider historical context. This approach ensures that any conclusions drawn are based on a thorough examination of the factual record and are not merely speculative opinions.
Quotes for consideration –– from both sides.
The contents of the plates, together with a Facsimile of the same, will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,’ as soon as the translation is completed. – The Nauvoo Neighbor, June 1843
The point with regards to the Kinderhook Plates is that I find it quite possible that Joseph Smith was not eager to translate them because he did not control their origin. The Book of Abraham took seven years to be completed, and that was with papyri that Joseph Smith purchased and knew were at least authentic. With the Kinderhook Plates, it is possible that the unknown origins made Joseph Smith cautious about diving in, knowing that he was not in control of the story of their origins.
– LDS Discussions
Joseph Smith “translated” a portion of those plates, not by claiming inspiration, but by comparing characters on the plates to those on his “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” (GAEL). We know that Joseph was interested in languages. He studied Greek, Hebrew, and German in a secular manner. Therefore, we can easily believe that he attempted to translate the Kinderhook plates without assuming prophetic powers, which powers consequently remain credible. – FAIR: Faithful Answers, Informed Response. FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice.
I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook… 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. – Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 3
Why does the circumstance of the plates recently found in a mound in Pike County, Ill., by Mr. Wiley, together with the ethnology and a thousand other things, go to prove the Book of Mormon true? – Ans. [Answer] Because it is true! – Times and Seasons, v. 5, p. 406
The new work which Jo. Is about to issue as a translation of these [Kinderhook] plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon… – Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844
An examination of the available sources shows a lively interest in the Kinderhook discovery on the part of Church members and of Joseph Smith himself. Eyewitnesses later confessed the whole affair was a hoax, though they made nothing of it during Joseph’s life. The fact that Joseph did not treat the Kinderhook Plates as a sacred project suggests that he may have had only a scholarly interest in the plates. Or perhaps Joseph sincerely believed that the Lord had led him to another sacred record that could be translated to provide the Saints with additional scripture, but when no inspiration came he quickly abandoned the Kinderhook Plates. It may also be that both Joseph the scholar and Joseph the prophet tried to do something with the plates, but nothing really came of either approach. Although William Clayton gives fairly strong evidence that Joseph attempted to translate at least some of the plates, apparently Joseph did not go far enough for the conspirators to spring the trap. – Brian M. Hauglid, BYU Religious Studies Center
Whether Joseph suspected the forgery, thought of attempting a revelatory translation but experienced a “stupor of thought,”* or merely took a scholarly interest in the purported ancient writings (like other amateur linguists of the time) remains unconfirmed by historical accounts. Whatever he thought of the plates, he quickly lost interest in them.
*stupor of thought: Doctrine and Covenants 9:9 “But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” – LDS Church History Topics
I’m surprised this old argument continues to be used. If you have access to LDS periodicals, an excellent and thorough article on the Kinderhook plates was written by Dr. Stanley B. Kimball in the Ensign of August, 1981, pp. 66-74. The bottom line is that there is no proof that Joseph Smith fell for the apparent fraud of the Kinderhook plates. He apparently showed no interest in them after his initial exposure – if he even personally saw them at all. – Jeff Lindsay, Vice President for The Interpreter Foundation and co-editor of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship.
A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook Plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders … Joseph Smith, Jun., pronounced them genuine and translated a part of them … This much remains. Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook Plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well. – IMPROVEMENT ERA, SEPT, 1962
The Mormon Stories Podcast is the longest-running and most successful podcast on Mormonism – hosted by Dr. John Dehlin. They explore, celebrate, and challenge Mormon culture through in-depth stories told by members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Kinderhook Plates – A Complete History, 2 hours 15 minutes, worth the time.
Ep. 1716 | LDS Discussions Ep. 33
There’s an interesting video out there that does a good job of quickly summarizing the most recent apologetic arguments surrounding the Kinderhook Plates.
Watch the video, then read my response.
I don’t blame anyone for finding their way to a faithful explanation of the Kinderhook Plates (or anything else for that matter). Faith is up to every individual. However, I do have an issue when the creators of apologetic stuff, like this video, leave out critical information. Whether intentional or not, that makes it look like they’re hiding something.
Frankly, I think it’s dishonest.
The cloud of controversy that continues to hover over the Kinderhook Plates debate is consistent with nearly every other element of LDS history, doctrine, and character flaws of its major personalities. There are several reasons for this:
Faith Preservation: The LDS Church views itself as the custodian of divine truth and the restorer of Christianity as established by Jesus Christ. Defending its doctrines and history is considered essential to preserve its members’ faith and maintain the integrity of its religious teachings.
Identity Protection: For numerous members of the LDS Church, their religious identity is closely bound up with their beliefs and rituals. When they perceive criticism aimed at the church’s doctrines or history, they often take it personally, feeling as though it’s an attack on their very sense of self and their religious community. Consequently, their defensive posture often stems from a genuine desire to safeguard the shared identity of their faith and its adherents.
Historical Context: The LDS Church originated in the 19th century during a period of religious revival and significant social change in the United States. Its founding leaders, such as Joseph Smith, encountered considerable scrutiny and hostility from the broader society. As a result, a tradition has developed within the church of staunchly defending against external criticism and fostering a strong sense of unity among its members.
Cognitive Dissonance: When faced with evidence or criticisms that challenge deeply held beliefs, individuals often experience cognitive dissonance—a psychological discomfort arising from holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. In response, individuals may engage in defense mechanisms, such as dismissing contrary evidence or rationalizing inconsistencies, to maintain psychological equilibrium.
Institutional Culture: Like many religious organizations, the LDS Church has developed its own institutional culture over time, which includes norms, values, and practices that shape how members perceive and respond to criticism. This culture may encourage a defensive posture when faced with challenges to the church’s doctrines or history.
Leadership Authority: The LDS Church places significant importance on hierarchical authority, viewing its leaders as being divinely inspired and guided by God. Consequently, many members tend to defer to the authority of these church leaders and trust their interpretations of doctrine and history. This inclination can lead to a defensive stance among members when these interpretations are challenged or questioned.
Critical thinking is not a hallmark of the LDS faith.
The Mormon faith often instills a strong sense of persecution among its members. From an early age, individuals are raised on narratives portraying the unjust treatment of early church members, who were frequently forced from their homes and ostracized for simply practicing their faith. These narratives reinforce a defensive stance, shutting down discussion and debate on historical and doctrinal matters. Members are taught that their religion is outdated in the modern world, yet they are assured of its moral righteousness as dictated by God, not society. Believers are repeatedly told that evidence holds little weight in matters of faith and that questioning or doubting can be detrimental.
Obedience to church teachings, above all else, is emphasized, including the obligation to defend one’s faith against anything deemed non-“faith promoting”. Many members make covenants prioritizing the church over family, career, and other significant aspects of life and are taught that attacks on their beliefs are equivalent to personal attacks. This defensiveness is a product of the church’s indoctrination system, making it challenging for individuals to distinguish between genuine inquiries and perceived attacks.
Although members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints espouse many non-biblical beliefs and zealously work at converting others to their beliefs, they are not the enemy. They should be treated with love and respect while offering clear biblical truths in a caring manner.
A notable trait of Mormonism is the tendency for many adherents to project an image of happiness and contentment, even when they may be experiencing internal turmoil or distress. The religion promotes ideals of success and resilience, discouraging individuals from openly acknowledging or discussing their struggles.
Clearly sharing what Jesus has done for us and the effect it has on us often serves as a magnet drawing Mormons to us. Here are some key thoughts to keep in mind when talking about Jesus.
Stress Jesus as our substitute (i.e. Isaiah 53:4-624 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.). Mormons primarily see him as their example. Point out the huge difference between the two. A substitute does it for us. An example shows us how but we must still do it.
Stress Jesus as our righteousness, as our law-keeper (i.e. Romans 5:19319 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous., 1 Corinthians 1:30430 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:, Isaiah 61:10510 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.). Mormons are bombarded with the thought that they must obey the laws. The biblical truth that Jesus kept the law for us is totally foreign to them.
Stress the assurance you have that you know you are completely forgiven (i.e. Hebrews 10:14-17614 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.) and are accepted by God (i.e. 1 Peter 2:979 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;).
Stress the joy you experience knowing God is with you, providing and protecting you (i.e. Romans 8:31-39831 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord., Psalm 23). Mormonism says we are on earth to be tested. As a result, many Mormons think of God as constantly evaluating and grading them. It is like having your boss constantly look over your shoulder as you work.
Stress the confidence you have that you will live eternally with Heavenly Father (i.e. Philippians 1:23923 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:). As stated above, only a few Mormons have this confidence. Emphasize that you have no doubts because your acceptance by God depends entirely on Jesus’ work for you and he has already accomplished it (John 19:301030 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.).
Footnote
1
A complex thought process or argument that is used to bend reality to suit something, such as a particular viewpoint.
2
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
3
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
4
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
5
10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.
6
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
7
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
8
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
9
23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
10
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.