The CES Letter, Explained

Introduction to The CES Letter

The CES Letter was written by Jeremy Runnells, a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also called the Mormon Church, or LDS Church. It is titled “The CES Letter” because Runnells wrote the letter to a friend of his grandfather who was a CES (Church Education System) director. Runnells stated this in his letter: “I’m a disaffected member who lost his testimony so it’s no secret which side I’m on at the moment,” implying his feelings and actions were opposed to the Mormon Church. Runnells says that his letter lists all of his personal problems with the Mormon Church and its history, however, he crowdsourced at least some of the content of his letter from an ex-Mormon Reddit group. The letter has had its own website since 2013 and has been edited to soften its tone and change some of its sources. One of the changes includes its title “The CES Letter: My search for Answers to my Mormon Doubts,” and its third title change since the publication of the CES Letter. Mormonism Explained will simply refer to it as the CES Letter. A CES Letter summary: the CES Letter covers thirteen topics and many more subtopics. Among these topics, Runnells addresses historical topics like Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon, polygamy, and priesthood restoration. He also addresses doctrinal topics like spiritual witnesses to truth and the nature of God.

Critics View & Factual Responses

What is the CES Letter?

The CES Letter Mormon was written by Jeremy Runnells, a former member of the Mormon Church. Runnells wrote the letter to voice his grievances with the LDS Church. He addressed the letter to a friend of his grandfather’s, a CES (Church Education System) director...
Read More

A CES Letter Summary: What Should I Know?

The CES Letter contains thirteen arguments against Mormonism. The topics addressed by the CES Letter are: the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon translation, the first vision, the Book of Abraham...
Read More

The CES Letter is Crowd-sourced

The CES Letter is a crowd-sourced compilation of many anti-Mormon arguments. The document is presented as a personal letter written by Jeremy Runnells to a CES director. The author never received a reply...
Read More

Critiques of Joseph Smith in the CES Letter

The CES letter criticizes Joseph Smith in various ways. A CES Letter summary of these arguments against Joseph Smith follows. First, the CES Letter claims Joseph Smith wrote (not translated)...
Read More

Critiques of Mormon Prophets in the CES Letter

The CES Letter questions the Mormon belief in prophets and focuses on five teachings and events around prophets. Part of the CES Letter’s argument relies on an assumption that prophets are infallible, or can’t make mistakes...
Read More

Untrustworthy Testimonies and the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon

The concept of testimony and spiritual witnesses comes under fire by the Mormon CES Letter. The idea that there are truths that can be known by spiritual means...
Read More

“Other Topics” and the CES Letter

The final section of the CES Letter Mormon lists “other” arguments against the Mormon Church. Some of these arguments are the church’s lack of financial transparency, censorship in the church...
Read More

Explanation of the CES Letter

There are some basic principles that each reader needs to understand before delving into this response to the CES Letter: first, the rhetorical strategy used by the author of the CES Letter is to inundate the reader with so much information, without regard to the accuracy of the evidence, so that the reader becomes overwhelmed. This rhetorical strategy is effective. The CES Letter covers thirteen topics, but many more subtopics. The CES Letter is about 136 pages in length. 

The second thing to note is that it is easier to make an accusation than it is to refute it. Third, evidence is open to interpretation. There is never just one explanation or conclusion to a topic. This is why historians still argue about events long discussed and even longer past–because the same evidence can be interpreted in many different ways and smart people do not always agree on the interpretation of evidence. Finally, there is an assumption by believing Mormons that evidence is important and one piece of crucial evidence in a discussion of any religious topic is the evidence that comes from spiritual experiences and faith in God. 

The organization of this section of the website is to list each topic and subtopic of the CES Letter. When expanded, either the whole text or a summary text of the CES Letter is presented in bolded and italicized text. Below each bolded and italicized section from the CES Letter, a response is given. The researchers at Mormonism Explained have tried to be as succinct, but as thorough as possible in their responses.

The CES Letter's Book of Mormon Criticisms

1769 KJV Errors as asserted in the CES Letter

“What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?” 

Many of the biblical quotations found in the Book of Mormon contain various types of errors and mistranslations,i but what these errors ultimately mean is debatable. Many questions remain about the nature of the Book of Mormon’s translation, including its extensive quoting of the King James Version of the Bible (KJV).

Read More

The CES Letter’s Question Regarding 17th Century Italics Book of Mormon Placement

“When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?” 

The biblical quotations found in the Book of Mormon often reproduce italicized words found in the King James Bible.viii Rather than demonstrating that the Book of Mormon isn’t true or ancient (as implied in the CES Letter), this may simply suggest that the Book of Mormon is intentionally relying on the version of these passages found in the King James Bible. Such an approach, even if it somewhat obscures the original reading, integrates the two texts together in a way that is predicted by the Book of Mormon’s own teachings and prophecies.ix   

There is no such thing as a perfect translation, in which the ideas expressed in one language are rendered into another with absolute precision. Meanings that can be communicated purely by grammar in one language (e.g., Hebrew), often require the addition of further words in another language (e.g., English.) Hence, many adjustments, such as adding words that weren’t in the original language, are often needed. If the King James Bible uses additional words (identified by italics) to help render a genuinely ancient text into readable English, it would follow that the Book of Mormon could easily use the same solution to the same problem.

  • References

    viii. See Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, Part 5 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2019), 182: “It is true that italicized words are often different in the Book of Mormon, 163 out of 425 cases (or 38.4 percent), but still the majority (61.6 percent) remain unchanged.” 

    ix. See 1 Nephi 13:39–40; 2 Nephi 3:12; 2 Nephi 29:6–9; Mormon 3:21; Mormon 7:8–9. 

Book of Mormon Mistranslations Asserted by the CES Letter

“The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. These Book of Mormon verses should match the inspired JST version instead of the incorrect KJV version that Joseph later fixed.”  

The CES Letter correctly notes that the Book of Mormon makes use of the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) in some cases where the KJV contains a mistranslation. The CES Letter then assumes that such errors wouldn’t have occurred if the Book of Mormon was indeed divinely revealed to Joseph Smith. Yet whether or not these mistakes would have been allowed or facilitated by God is an open question.  

Every translation of an ancient text will follow certain priorities or guidelines. Some translations attempt to achieve a very literal rendering of the original text, sometimes to the point that it may even sound awkward in the target language. Other translations aim for a fairly loose correspondence of ideas. A translation of a single text may even considerably vary in how “tight” or “loose” it is, depending on the context of a given passage.  

When it comes to the translation of the Book of Mormon, it is possible that one significant goal was to thoroughly integrate relevant KJV passages and language with the Book of Mormon text itself, despite it sometimes resulting in a fairly loose representation of ideas. Under this understanding, achieving textual and doctrinal integration of the Bible and Book of Mormon would be the primary concern,x rather than an attempt to produce a strictly literal translation of Nephite source texts or to correct the errors in the KJV.xi  

When Joseph Smith later carried out his inspired revision of the Bible—commonly referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)—he was operating under a different set of translation goals. In that context, it seems he primarily intended to correct doctrine and clarify readability, rather than bring an entire ancient text into a modern language or attempt to merge two sacred texts.xii  

Thus, the difference in how biblical passages were handled in these separate translation projects can be explained by their having different priorities in different contexts. Many questions remain about the Book of Mormon’s translation, and even among believing Latter-day Saints there are different theories about how the translation was carried out.xiii So, there may be multiple possible solutions to this concern, depending on one’s starting assumptions and working theory of translation.

  • References

    x. See 1 Nephi 13:39–40; 2 Nephi 3:12; 2 Nephi 29:6–9; Mormon 3:21; Mormon 7:8–9. 

    xi. For a comprehensive treatment of the Book of Mormon’s reliance on the King James Bible, see Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, Part 5 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2019). 

    xii. See Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible,” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010), 5863, online at https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-prophet-seer/joseph-smiths-new-translation-bible-1830. 

    xiii. See, for instance, the different approaches in the following sourcesBrant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2011); Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Part 3 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018). 

The CES’s Letter View on Book of Mormon DNA Analysis

“DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia.” The CES Letter then asks why, in 2006, the Introduction to the Book of Mormon was changed to state that the Lamanites areamong the ancestors” of the American Indians (whereas it previously stated that they were theprincipal ancestors” of this group). The Letter then gives the following update:The Church conceded in its January 2014 Book of Mormon and DNA Studies essay that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA. The Church, through this essay, makes a major shift in narrative from its past dominant narrative and claims of the origins of the Native American Indians.” 

Although Mormons don’t believe in scriptural infallibility, it is important to recognize that the Introduction to the Book of Mormon (which was changed in 2006) actually isn’t part of the canonized text itself.xiv Instead, it was composed by a scripture committee in modern times.xv Occasional errors and the need for ongoing adjustments in these types of supplemental materials is expected.  

Decades before the change in the Introduction took place, some Latter-day Saint scholars, commentators, and leaders had already concluded that Lehi’s colony was likely just a small group that assimilated into a much larger network of ancient American societies. This idea was published in a variety of venues and gained a fair amount of visibility within the Church.xvi So, while the adjustment to the Introduction may have been surprising to some, it was welcome and not entirely unexpected for others.xvii  

If Lehi’s people truly did amount to just a small drop of DNA in the figurative gene pool, then all trace of their genetic influence could easily get lost over time.xviii This could explain why Native American DNA is predominately of Asian—rather than Middle Eastern—origin. Notably, the idea that Book of Mormon peoples integrated into much larger pre-existing societies was adopted by Mormon scholars long before DNA analysis was possible.xix  

  • References

    x. See 1 Nephi 13:39–40; 2 Nephi 3:12; 2 Nephi 29:6–9; Mormon 3:21; Mormon 7:8–9. 

    xi. For a comprehensive treatment of the Book of Mormon’s reliance on the King James Bible, see Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, Part 5 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2019). 

    xii. See Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible,” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010), 5863, online at https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-prophet-seer/joseph-smiths-new-translation-bible-1830. 

    xiii. See, for instance, the different approaches in the following sourcesBrant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2011); Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Part 3 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018). 

The CES Letter’s Statement on Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

“Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC–421 AD? … Unofficial apologists claim victories in some of these items but closer inspection reveals significant problems. It has been documented that apologists have manipulated wording so that steel is not steel, sheep become never-domesticated bighorn sheep, horses become tapirs, etc.” 

The CES Letter implies that many items mentioned in the Book of Mormon are anachronisms. An “anachronism” is something that does not fit in a given time or setting, like the idea of a cell phone being used by William Shakespeare (long before cell phones were invented).

One important consideration is a phenomenon called “loan-shifting.” This takes place when explorers or settlers, such as Lehi’s colony, encounter unfamiliar plants, animals, or other items in a new environment. In many instances, the new arrivals will use familiar terms from their old setting to describe unfamiliar (but similar) items in their new locale. For instance, settlers in North America have traditionally called the American bison a “buffalo,” even though that technically isn’t correct and is based on the name of certain Old-World animals. Whether one wants to call this “manipulated wording” or something else, it is clearly a real phenomenon that must be considered. Because loan-shifting is well-attested in both ancient and modern times, it could affect the text of the Book of Mormon on various levels.xx

In other instances, the perception of an anachronism may simply be due to a lack of familiarity with the meaning of terms in earlier periods of the English language.xxi It is also possible that anachronisms can be introduced through the translation process itself for various reasons. For instance, the King James translators frequently used the term “candlestick” even though ancient Israelites actually didn’t use candles.xxii Sometimes such mistranslations are accidental, but in other instances a translator might knowingly “update” an ancient text, to help it make better sense to a modern audience.xxiii

Finally, one must factor in the highly fragmentary nature of the archaeological and historical record, especially in ancient America.xxiv In a number of instances, items in the text that were once thought to be anachronistic, due to an apparent lack of supporting evidence, later turned up in the purported ancient context. While some items mentioned in the text haven’t yet been verified, historical and archaeological developments continue to shed light on the Book of Mormon and offer varying degrees of support for its claims.xxv

Thus, whether due to loan-shifting, changing English definitions, translation issues, or fragmentary archaeological evidence, there are multiple avenues to potentially account for alleged Book of Mormon anachronisms.

  • References

    x. See 1 Nephi 13:39–40; 2 Nephi 3:12; 2 Nephi 29:6–9; Mormon 3:21; Mormon 7:8–9. 

    xi. For a comprehensive treatment of the Book of Mormon’s reliance on the King James Bible, see Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, Part 5 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2019). 

    xii. See Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible,” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010), 5863, online at https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-prophet-seer/joseph-smiths-new-translation-bible-1830. 

    xiii. See, for instance, the different approaches in the following sourcesBrant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2011); Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Part 3 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018). 

Book of Mormon Archaeology Mistakes Alleged by the CES Letter

“There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions. … Admittedly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where are the Nephite or Lamanite buildings, roads, armors, swords, pottery, art, etc.? How can these great civilizations just vanish without a trace?” 

Many items of material culture described in the Nephite record have been identified in ancient America or are believed by scholars to have existed in that setting. These include temples, highways, market systems, towers, fortifications, stone monuments, cement buildings, various types of weapons, written records, and so forth.xxvi While not everything described in the text has turned up in the archaeological record, many items have now been found. In some instances, these ongoing discoveries have directly overturned assumptions made by the Book of Mormon’s critics.xxvii 

So, what the CES Letter likely means (by a lack of “directly” supporting evidence) is that there aren’t any known archaeological artifacts that can be definitively traced back to Book of Mormon cultures. If so, that assessment would essentially be correct.  

What the CES Letter doesn’t explain is that there is actually very limited inscriptional data from Book of Mormon times in ancient America.xxviii And without such data, it would be difficult or impossible to distinguish Nephite artifacts from those of surrounding cultures. As explained by Latter-day Saint archaeologist John E. Clark, “The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are.”xxix 

“This [lack of archaeological evidence] is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.” 
 
The limited Book of Mormon geography model came about gradually and for a variety of reasons.xxx Contrary to the CES Letter’s claim, the adoption of this model wasn’t merely due to a lack of archaeological evidence at the hill in New York near Joseph Smith’s home (which many early Latter-day Saints assumed was the Hill Cumorah spoken of in the Book of Mormon). Instead, various types of data—particularly textual evidence from the Book of Mormon itself—led scholars to conclude that the hill in New York is not the Hill Cumorah where the final Nephite-Lamanite battle was fought.xxxi  
 
The history of prophetic statements and views on Book of Mormon geography is also more complex than the CES Letter makes it appear. Early church leaders, including Joseph Smith, assumed that the Book of Mormon took place throughout the entire American hemisphere. Yet when one looks closely at their recorded statements over time, it becomes clear that their views on geography were based on opinion and assumption, rather than revelation.xxxii  

In recent years, the LDS Church has made it clear that the specific ancient American setting of the Book of Mormon has not been divinely revealed.xxxiii Thus, there is plenty of room, doctrinally speaking, for believing Mormon scholars and researchers to reach their own conclusions about the Book of Mormon’s probable setting, based on the available historical, archaeological, cultural, geographical, and scriptural data. 

Geographical Errors in the Book of Mormon Alleged by the CES Letter

“Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region where Joseph Smith lived.” After presenting two maps, explaining potential relationships, and providing a list of parallel names, the CES Letter asks, “Why are there so many names similar to Book of Mormon names in the region where Joseph Smith lived?”   

The maps and data which the CES Letter relies on were created in the 1980s by a man named Vernal Holley. However, several factors substantially reduce the significance of these proposed parallels: (1) The named locations in Holley’s maps bear hardly any resemblance to the geo-spatial relationships described in the text of the Book of Mormon itself. (2) Some locations didn’t exist at the time or weren’t given the names listed by Holley until after the Book of Mormon was translated. (3) Others had very small populations or were located hundreds of miles away, making them poor candidates to have influenced Joseph Smith’s thinking. (4) Some of the names are also found in the Bible, which offers another (often more likely) source for those names. (5) Only a few names involve a precise match in spelling (Alma, Boaz, Jerusalem, Jordan, Noah), and of these only one Alma isn’t found in the Bible.xxxiv  

After presenting a list of identified parallels, the CES Letter asks, “Is this really all just a coincidence?” Yes, it appears that way. It would be expected that a few names (of many dozens) in the Nephite record would, by happenstance, resemble a few of the numerous toponyms scattered for hundreds of miles surrounding Smith’s environment. It also isn’t surprising that some biblical names can be found in both contexts.   

The CES Letter draws attention to the Comoro islands off the east coast of Africa, which had a capitol city named Moroni. It is proposed that these locations are the source of the names of the angel Moroni and Hill Cumorah, in connection with the Book of Mormon. The CES Letter suggests that Joseph Smith was exposed to these names through the widely circulated treasure hunting stories about Captain William Kidd.  

Stories of Captain Kidd and buried treasure were indeed prevalent in Joseph Smith’s environment, and several late hostile reminiscences report that Smith was in some way influenced by them. However, there are problems with the connection proposed in the CES Letter 

Neither the Comoro islands nor the city of Moroni are known to have been mentioned in any of the stories about Captain Kidd.xxxv And while it is true that Captain Kidd once visited the Comoro islands, he apparently only did so before he was a pirate, and neither of these names turns up that history.xxxvi  Considering how obscure the connection is, there is no reason to assume that anyone in Joseph Smith’s vicinity would have been familiar with any variations of the names Comoro or Moroni in relation to the stories of Captain Kidd.  

The CES Letter’s View on the ‘View of the Hebrews’

“There was a book published in 1823 Vermont entitled View of the Hebrews.” The CES Letter lists a chart of what it believes are similarities between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. This list was initially created by Mormon historian B. H. Roberts.  

Roberts researched The Book of Mormon extensively so that he could play devil’s advocate and create a list of issues that critics might pose in the future. In one of those exercises, he also read View of the Hebrews and created a list of similarities that critics might highlight. This information was given to Mormon Church leaders so that they could craft responses to those things on his list.xxxvii The idea that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery plagiarized View of the Hebrews was first proposed in 1902, 72 years after The Book of Mormon was first published.xxxviii However, a case could be made for an earlier date of 1887 for the first allegation.xxxix The Mormon Church was unconcerned by this proposition and published the book themselves once its copyright had expired.xl There is no evidence that Smith had read or was even aware of View of the Hebrews in 1828–29 when The Book of Mormon was being transcribed. The only existing evidence to show that Smith was aware of the book at all came in 1842, in which he quoted from a book that quoted from View of the Hebrews.xli 

There are certainly broad parallels between the two books, as Roberts and the CES Letter demonstrate.xlii However, there are many more differences than similarities.xliii For example, one of the correspondences listed in the CES Letter is that both books discuss the destruction of Jerusalem. Though this initially looks like a similarity, it is not once you look at the details. The Book of Mormon describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC (1 Ne. 1:4 & 13). View of the Hebrews, meanwhile, describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.xliv In another instance, the list in the CES Letter states that The Book of Mormon was first published in Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont, as that is adjacent to where View of the Hebrews was first published in Poultney, Rutland County, Vermont. However, The Book of Mormon was actually first published in Palmyra, New York, not Sharon, Vermont.xlv 

One scholar noted that, “VH is merely a book presenting reports that support the idea that the Indians were descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. It contains no history, no narratives, no visions, no revelations, no personalities, no literature of these people themselves. Thus, there are an enormous number of things which the Book of Mormon contains which VH does not. The reader can get a good idea of the meager contents of VH by reading [a] summary of its main points. Anything beyond this is new material added by the Book of Mormon. Thus, even if VH is advanced as an explanation for some of the Book of Mormon, it does not explain very much.”xlvi This scholar then lists 84 “unparallels” between the two books, demonstrating how disparate they are.xlvii 

While superficial similarities between the two books are undeniable, when you look more closely at the contents of each volume, the differences are stark.xlviii The Book of Mormon is a narrative history of a group of people, while View of the Hebrews is a much-shorter academic essay attempting to prove that Native Americans are Israelites. Additionally, in several places, The Book of Mormon flatly contradicts View of the Hebrews.xlix It also contradicts common beliefs and writing styles from Joseph Smith’s era.l 

“Reverend Ethan Smith was the author of View of the Hebrews. Ethan Smith was a pastor in Poultney, Vermont when he wrote and published the book. Oliver Cowdery – also a Poultney, Vermont resident – was a member of Ethan’s congregation during this time and before he went to New York to join his distant cousin Joseph Smith. As you know, Oliver Cowdery played an instrumental role in the production of the Book of Mormon. This direct link between Joseph and Oliver and View of the Hebrews demonstrates that Joseph is very likely to have been aware of the theme and content of that book. It gives weight to all the similarities described in the preceding comparison chart. Apologists may point out that the Book of Mormon is not a direct, word-for-word plagiarism of View of the Hebrews, and indeed that is not the claim. Rather, the similarities should give any reader pause that two books so similar in theme and content would coincidentally be connected by Oliver Cowdery.” 

Any connection between Oliver Cowdery and Ethan Smith is unproven. Cowdery was likely living out of town with relatives during the years in which his family may have been members of the same church Smith belonged to. The historical record has mention of Cowdery’s stepmother attending church services on three occasions: once in 1803, when she joined the congregation, once in 1810, and once in 1818, when her three daughters with Cowdery’s father were all baptized during the same service. Each of these three instances occurred when the prior pastor, Reverend Mr. Leonard, served the congregation. No other Cowdery family members are mentioned in church records, and it is unclear how often the family attended services. There is no record of them attending the church during Smith’s tenure as pastor, a change which occurred three years after the baptism of Cowdery’s half-sisters. No document has been found linking Cowdery to that church, Ethan Smith, or his writings.li 

Cowdery was Joseph Smith’s third cousin once removed, a fact which he and the Smith family seemed to be unaware of.lii They met for the first time in 1828, after Smith had started on the translation of The Book of Mormon.liii 

Because there is no known link between Cowdery and Ethan Smith or View of the Hebrews, there is also no known “direct link” between Joseph Smith and View of the Hebrews, as claimed by the CES Letter. Despite having some broad generalities in common, their themes and content are not similar. View of the Hebrews is an academic essay combining supporting evidence, history, and the author’s personal theories, attempting to prove that Israelites were the ancestors of the Native Americans. It reads like a textbook. The Book of Mormon is a religious historical narrative, telling a story. Its themes and content are theological, not academic.  

“LDS General Authority and scholar Elder B.H. Roberts privately researched the link between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews, Joseph’s father having the same dream in 1811 as Lehi’s dream, and other sources that were available to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and others before the publication of the Book of Mormon. Elder Roberts’ private research was meant only for the eyes of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and was never intended to be available to the public. However, Roberts’ work was later published in 1985 as Studies of the Book of Mormon. Based upon his research, Elder B.H. Roberts came to the following conclusion on the View of the Hebrews: ‘Did Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon’s origin.’—B.H. ROBERTS, STUDIES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, P.240.”

B. H. Roberts engaged in a thought exercise on behalf of the leaders of the Mormon Church. His list comparing The Book of Mormon to View of the Hebrews was so that those leaders could craft responses to the arguments, should the critics pose them. He was playing devil’s advocate, not giving his own opinion.liv

In the preface to his report, he stated, “In writing out this report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine.  This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ’study of Book of Mormon origins,’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it…” (Emphasis added).lv This preface was reprinted on pages 57–58 of the same book the CES Letter cites above, so it is unclear how the author of that document missed it.lvi  

Roberts also explained his position in the Mormon Church’s official magazine, The Improvement Era: “Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph….”lvii He also at times referred to the book of Third Nephi in The Book of Mormon as “a fifth gospel.”lviii 

As for Joseph Smith’s father having similar dreams to that of Lehi in The Book of Mormon, this was recollected in 1845. The dreams occurred in 1811, 34 years earlier.lix With The Book of Mormon being published in 1829, it is possible that these later recollections were influenced to some degree by the narrative of the book.lx Additionally, because biographical editing standards of the day meant that the editors, Martha and Howard Coray, inserted their own ideas and outside sources into the material, it is unclear how much of Lucy Mack Smith’s recollections came from her and how much was crafted by the editors.lxi It is also possible that Smith’s memories of the dreams in question are perfectly accurate. It is impossible to know for certain, as it does not appear she wrote down the details of the dreams in 1811.  

“While this does not prove that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the View of the Hebrews, it does demonstrate that key elements of the story of the Book of Mormon – i.e. Native Americans as Hebrew descendants, ancient records of natives preserved, scattering and gathering of Israel, Hebrew origin of Native American language, etc. pre-dated the Book of Mormon and were already among the ideas circulating among New England protestant Americans. With these ideas already existing and the previously cited issues with KJV plagiarism, errors, anachronisms, geography problems, and more issues to come, is it unreasonable to question Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon origins as Church Historian B.H. Roberts did? UPDATE: Additional information and analysis can be found at cesletter.org/voh.” 

Joseph Smith’s life, culture, and environment likely played a role in influencing his word choice when it came to translating, writing, sermonizing, dictating revelation, and interpreting prophecy. However, this does not mean that he plagiarized The Book of Mormon from his surroundings.lxii It is not unusual that 19th century vernacular would creep into his work, even if The Book of Mormon was a standard translation from one language to another.  

One thing the CES Letter does not mention is that, while there are some things that Smith could have pulled from his environment, there are many things in The Book of Mormon that contradict the 19th century zeitgeist.lxiii For example, descriptions of the Arabian landscape in Smith’s era were often incorrect to what we know today, and yet, Smith was correct in his descriptions.lxiv 

While readers can examine the evidence and decide for themselves whether Smith borrowed from outside sources when dictating The Book of Mormon, the “previously cited issues” the CES Letter presents are often exaggerated or distorted. One such instance is in the testimony of B. H. Roberts, who only questioned the origins of The Book of Mormon as a thought exercise and not because he doubted them.lxv 

The CES Letter gives a link to additional information and analysis; however, the page does not exist. The error page is mocking the LDS Church, which is antithetical to the CES Letter’s stated goal to refrain from tearing down anyone else’s faith.lxvi  

What the CES Letter Says About The Late War Between the U.S. and Great Britain

“The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain: This book was an 1819 textbook written for New York state school children. The book depicted the events of the War of 1812 and it was specifically written in a Jacobean English style to imitate the King James Bible. This affected scriptural style was calculated to elevate the moral themes, characters and events depicted in the narrative to inspire the readers to ‘patriotism and piety.’ Readers already accustomed to revere scriptural sounding texts in the ancient Bible would be predisposed to revere this history book which employs the same linguistic style. The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon.” The CES Letter then quotes part of The Late War. 

Pseudo-Biblicism (writing employing KJV-style language) was a popular writing style for approximately 100 years between about 1750–1850.lxvii There are many books and newspaper articles written in this style from that period. This would naturally lead to similar word choice and phrasing among those works. While Joseph Smith’s environment likely colored his own word choice during the translation of The Book of Mormon, this is not evidence that he copied The Book of Mormon from other books written in the same style.lxviii There is no evidence that Smith ever read The Late War.lxix  

In fact, one researcher’s in-depth analysis showed that, “even if Joseph had grown up reading and re-reading The Late War, it would not have given him the ability to produce Book of Mormon grammar. That required extensive knowledge of a wide range of extra-biblical earlier English, mostly 16th- and 17th-century in character, but also including usage from before and after the early modern period. In a nutshell, the Book of Mormon text exhibits high levels of archaic (morpho)syntax; the pseudo-biblical texts exhibit much lower levels of archaic (morpho)syntax.”lxx 

This means that The Book of Mormon uses the same language patterns that the King James Version of the Bible does to a high degree, while other books from that period are obvious caricatures of the style and their similarities in language to the KJV Bible are much lower. The above researcher was not the only one to make this discovery.lxxi  

“In addition to the above KJV language style present throughout the book, what are the following Book of Mormon verbatim phrases, themes, and storylines doing in a children’s school textbook that was used in Joseph Smith’s own time and backyard – all of this a mere decade before the publication of the Book of Mormon?” The CES Letter then gives a list of alleged similarities between The Book of Mormon and The Late War. 

As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever read The Late War.lxxii Additionally, the computer program that found the correlations did not take context into account.lxxiii Of the 549 correspondences they found, 75 of them were taken from the standardized copyright template alone.lxxiv Many are words or phrases found in the Bible, which makes sense if one was a similar religious work and one was imitating the KJV language. Others are 19th-Century vernacular. Very few of them are contextually similar.lxxv  

“The parallels and similarities to the Book of Mormon are astounding. This web page outlines very clearly and simply just how phenomenally unlikely it is that so many common rare phrases and themes could be found between these books without the Late War having had some influence on the Book of Mormon. Former BYU Library Bibliographic Dept. Chairman and antique book specialist Rick Grunder states in his analysis of The Late War (p.770): ‘The presence of Hebraisms and other striking parallels in a popular children’s textbook (Late War), on the other hand – so close to Joseph Smith in his youth – must sober our perspective.’” 

Computer searches that hunt for parallels between books will inevitably find them. However, “when literary parallels are the result of intensive searches of massive databases, they cannot help us identify an author (or even influences on an author), nor can they help us understand the relationships between texts.”lxxvi These types of parallels are so common that one author satirized them by claiming that The Book of Mormon was influenced by Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass—despite its publication 25 years after that of The Book of Mormon.lxxvii 

With the 75 parallels from the standardized copyright template removed, only 0.93% of possible phrases from The Late War appear in The Book of Mormon, and only 0.23% of possible phrases from The Book of Mormon appear in The Late War. Less than 1% of the text of each book is similar. This means that the likelihood of The Late War having any influence over The Book of Mormon is incredibly small.lxxviii 

In a response to Grunder’s claims, one scholar wrote, “This, as Schaalje insists, is ‘the crux of parallelomania.’ … In this case, what may seem highly suspect or too coincidental to be believable as random chance is really quite believable. Where we are dealing with environmental influence on a text in its historical process, any two texts can display large quantities of similarities found through comparison. But, a mountain of these parallels (while seemingly too large to be mere coincidence) isn’t evidence of a more genetic relationship.”lxxix It is reasonable to expect that books written in a similar time, in a similar place would have similar phrasing in places. What Grunder does not do is provide evidence of influence of The Late War on The Book of Mormon.lxxx 

The First Book of Napoleon and The Book of Mormon Similarities Stated in the CES Letter

“Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon.” The CES Letter then quotes a portion of The First Book of Napoleon. “It’s like reading from the Book of Mormon. When I first read this along with other passages from The First Book of Napoleon, I was floored. Here we have two early 19th century contemporary books written at least a decade before the Book of Mormon that not only read and sound like the Book of Mormon but also contain so many of the Book of Mormon’s parallels and themes as well.” 

As was discussed in earlier sections, books written in the same part of the country during the same time period would have similar phrasing in places, but that does not denote any relationship between the texts.lxxxi Additionally, The Book of Mormon is unlike other pseudo-archaic works from the period in that those works demonstrate a noticeable caricature of King James Bible language, whereas The Book of Mormon uses actual KJV language rather than an impersonation of it.lxxxii 

“The following is a side-by-side comparison of selected phrases the Book of Mormon is known for from the beginning portion of the Book of Mormon with the same order in the beginning portion of The First Book of Napoleon (note: these are not direct paragraphs):” 

The First Book of Napoleon  The Book of Mormon 
Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Napoleon…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…their inheritances their gold and silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of their hearts…small in stature…Jerusalem…because of the perverse wickedness of the people.  Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Nephi…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…his inheritance and his gold and his silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of his heart…large in stature…Jerusalem…because of the wickedness of the people. 

 

The CES Letter is correct when it says that these are not direct paragraphs. These paragraphs have been described by one commenter as “perhaps the most egregious deliberate deception within the [CES] Letter.”lxxxiii The reason for this bold indictment is that it took 25 pages of The First Book of Napoleon and three chapters of The Book of Mormon to piece together these paragraphs of disjointed, partial phrases.lxxxiv It is difficult to see how this could be a sincere question, or how The First Book of Napoleon could be the inspiration for The Book of Mormon given this information. 

Additionally, the context is very different in each book. The “condemn” line from both books demonstrates this. The First Book of Napoleon says, “…and condemn not the feebly imitative manner of writing therein occasionally employed, until thou canst point out a language more impressive, or more appropriate, than that in imitation whereof these chapters are framed.”lxxxv In contrast, The Book of Mormon says, “condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”lxxxvi The Book of Mormon isn’t talking about “writing” at all, but religion. The other phrases are equally different.lxxxvii 

There is no evidence that, at the time of the dictation of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith had ever read or had any knowledge of View of the Hebrews, The Late War, or The First Book of Napoleon.lxxxviii 

Misguided Perspective of the CES Letter on the Early Godhead and the Book of Mormon

“The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. Joseph Smith’s early theology also held this view. As part of the over 100,000 changes to the Book of Mormon, there were major changes made to reflect Joseph’s evolved view of the Godhead.” 

 

  Original 1830 Book of Mormon Text  Current Book of Mormon Text 
1 Nephi 3 vs 1 Nephi 11:18  And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.  And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. 
1 Nephi 3 vs 1 Nephi 11:21  And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!  And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yeah, even the Son of the Eternal Father 
1 Nephi 2 vs 1 Nephi 11:32  And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world;  And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; 
1 Nephi 3 vs 1 Nephi 13:40  These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world;   These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; 

 

The “over 100,000 changes to the Book of Mormon” are mostly minor things such as punctuation and spelling. This was because the original manuscript was delivered to the printer without any punctuation and with numerous spelling errors.lxxxix In the rare instances when the changes were more significant than that, it was done to clarify the intended meaning of the verses in question.xc  

The Book of Mormon view of the Godhead is less like the modern-day understanding of the Trinity and closer to the ancient Israelite view.xci For the early Israelites, God the Father/Elohim was given the title El Elyon, God Most High. The Sons of El Elyon formed the heavenly council. Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton, is a Son of the Most High God. Humans are the sons of Yahweh, making Him both God and Son of God. Yahweh would someday come to Earth as the human Messiah and is a distinct being separate from God the Father, El Elyon. This understanding of the Father and the Son is expressed all throughout The Book of Mormon.xcii 

The alterations to the verses in question were made to clarify the intended meaning of the text for early Mormons who were confused by this understanding of God and Jesus Christ. In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, “explain” is a valid meaning of “translate,” because a translation that cannot be properly understood by the readers is not a very good one.xciii Smith, declaring himself the translator of The Book of Mormon, occasionally altered the text in such a way as to explain the intended meaning to readers.xciv 

As for Smith’s personal theology, a few weeks before his death he said, “I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it?”xcv 

The CES Letter then cites additional verses still in The Book of Mormon today that it says could be read with a Trinitarian view. “Boyd Kirkland made the following observation: ‘The Book of Mormon and early revelations of Joseph Smith do indeed vividly portray a picture of the Father and Son as the same God…why is it that the Book of Mormon not only doesn’t clear up questions about the Godhead which have raged in Christianity for centuries, but on the contrary just adds to the confusion? This seems particularly ironic, since a major avowed purpose of the book was to restore lost truths and end doctrinal controversies caused by the ‘great and abominable Church’s’ corruption of the Bible…In later years he [Joseph] reversed his earlier efforts to completely ‘monotheise’ the godhead and instead ‘tritheised’ it.’ UPDATE: Additional information and analysis can be found at cesletter.org/trinitarian. Assuming that the official 1838 first vision account is truthful and accurate, why would Joseph Smith hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead if he personally saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate and embodied beings a few years earlier in the Sacred Grove?” 

As discussed in the prior section, The Book of Mormon reflects an early Israelite understanding of the Godhead, rather than a Trinitarian understanding.xcvi In this understanding, Yahweh/Jehovah, the Messiah, is a member of the heavenly council and a son of El Elyon, the Most High God. Yahweh is also the God and spiritual father of humans. This makes Him both God and the Son of God, though He is physically distinct from God the Father.  

The interpretation given by both the CES Letter and Boyd Kirkland may be because they are confusing the metaphysical Trinity of the Christian creeds with a social Trinity. Three beings who are one in purpose but are separately distinct personages form a social Trinity. In John 17:22, Jesus Christ asks the Apostles to be one in the same way that He is one with His Father. As the Apostles cannot become part of a metaphysical union like the creedal Trinity, Mormons view the Godhead as a social Trinity instead.xcvii 

One scholar explained, “As a reader who knows about First Temple theology, and who considers many other important Book of Mormon passages that [the CES Letter] does not address, I know that Yahweh, God of the Old Testament, is a Son of El Elyon, God Most High, and that Yahweh/Jesus becomes the father of humans who covenant with him. Yahweh is the creator of the earth. In light of the different context I bring to the same passages that [the CES Letter] cites, I don’t have the same problems [it] does. … In the Book of Mormon, therefore, Jesus is God of the Old Testament, who gave the law to Moses, part of a social Trinity that is ‘one God.’ Jehovah has a Father, El Elyon, God Most High, that bears witness of Him and to whom He prays. Christ is a father to human via covenant, and therefore, ‘because of the covenant ye have made ye shall be called the Children of Christ, his sons and daughters: for behold this day hath he spiritually begotten you (Mosiah 5:7).”xcviii This understanding was not altered by Joseph Smith’s changes to the Book of Mormon text.

The CES Letter's Book of Mormon Translation Criticisms

Criticisms of the Book of Mormon Translation Method in the CES Letter

Unlike the story I’ve been taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, General Conferences, Seminary, EFY, Ensigns, Church history tour, MiIssionary Training Center, and BYU…Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon. He used the same magic rock he used during his treasure-hunting days. He put a rock in his hat and put his face in the hat to tell customers the location of buried treasure on their property, and used this same method for translating the Book of Mormon. The Church admitted this in the October 2015 Ensign, where you can see a picture of the actual rock Smith used.  

When translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith used at least two different instruments as revelatory aids. One was a set of Nephite “interpreters,” which consisted of two transparent stones placed in metal rims that resembled spectacles. This object was discovered alongside the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Smith also used one or more personal seer stones that he discovered before he obtained the gold plates. No matter which stone he used in any given circumstance to facilitate his translation, all of them were later referred to generically as the “Urim and Thummim.”xcix 

In his youth, Smith was often hired as a day laborer in order to help support his family. Some of the jobs he took involved treasure-hunting or looking for lost objects using a seer stone.c This was a fairly common activity in his cultural environment and wasn’t necessarily viewed as incompatible with Christianity. Eventually Smith left treasure-seeking behind and used his prophetic gifts–and even his seer stones–for religious purposes, such as translating the Book of Mormon.ci  

Individual accounts of the translation process vary.cii While Smith himself only stated that it was “through the gift and power of God,”ciii scribes, friends, and family members who witnessed the translation efforts reported conflicting stories, indicating that the process likely differed at various times.civ 

While some, including the author of the CES Letter, may be perplexed by the idea of using physical objects to aid in receiving revelation, the Bible is replete with such stories. Notable examples include: Joseph of Egypt’s divining cup (Gen. 44:2–5); Jacob’s rod of poplars (Gen. 30:37–43); the staffs used by both Moses and Aaron to perform miracles (Ex. 7:8–12; Ex. 14:16–22; Ex. 17:1-6); the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:10–22); the ephod worn by Levite priests associated with the Urim and Thummim (Ex. 28:15–30); the brass serpent (Num. 21:8–9); the lots cast by the Apostles (Acts 1:26); and the use of consecrated oil during a blessing (James 5:14–15).

The CES Letter's Critical Perspective on the History of the Gold Plates

The gold plates were covered, placed in another room, or even buried in the woods. The gold plates were not used for the Book of Mormon we have today. Why were the plates necessary? Possession of them placed the Smith family in considerable danger, causing them a host of difficulties. If they weren’t part of the translation process, why did it happen? Why did the Lord direct the writers of the Book of Mormon to make a duplicate record of the plates of Lehi? Why was it necessary for Moroni to instruct Smith each year for 4 years before he was entrusted with the plates? Why was it important for Moroni to show the plates to 3 witnesses, and for Smith to show the plates to an additional 8 witnesses? Why bother if they weren’t used in the translation process? Why would the Lord have Moroni seal up the plates and the interpreters for translation for hundreds of years if Smith was just going to use a stone he already had for the translation? Is that really a credible explanation of the way the heavens operate? 

Historical sources report that Joseph Smith did, in fact, use the plates for the translation of at least part of the Book of Mormon, mooting the CES Letter’s arguments. 

It may be true thaAnd whilet Joseph Smith did not directly read from the gold plates during most of his translation efforts,cv itbut that doesn’t mean the plates were meaningless or played no essential role in the coming forth of even those portions of the Book of Mormon the Book of Mormon. For one thing, they served as tangible evidence that helped support Joseph’s miraculous claims. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing them, hefting them, moving them from one location to another, or rustling their pages.cvi The existence of real plates also invites belief that there were real Nephites and that the Book of Mormon presents real history. Finally, the gold plates hold various layers of symbolic value, as they typologically represent Jesus Christ himself.cvii 

Additionally, as outlined in the “The Rock and the Hat” section, Smith used several instruments as an aid to his translation efforts, including that of the interpreters.cviii  

The CES Critiques on the Church's Artwork of Joseph Smith Translating the Plates

The Book of Mormon translation that the Church portrayed and still portrays through artwork to its members has Smith running his fingers over the gold plates as if he’s reading them or looking through the spectacles that held the interpreters/Urim and Thummim. This is not the way it actually happened.  

As mentioned above, there are accounts, ignored by the author of the CES Letter, that Joseph Smith did use the plates and interpreters at certain points in his translation work. So, artwork that portrays these methods is not necessarily wrong, it just does not reflect his process in translating all of the text. 

Whether due to a lack of knowledge or an artist’s own preferences, LDS artwork in the past has not always been historically accurate, particularly in representing all the various translation methods employed by Joseph Smith. The purpose and intent of art, however, is often subjective. Artists may wish to inspire certain feelings or follow their own artistic taste, rather than strive for precise historical representations.   

Mormon artist and historian Anthony Sweat, after interviewing other Church artists, found that the majority felt that an artist “carries no responsibility” to always “paint historical reality.”cix Sweat also described being told by such artists that, in the past, they had been approached by the LDS Church to paint historically accurate artwork. Some of these commissions included depictions of Joseph Smith using a personal seer stone and a hat to block out the light. However, the artists were unable to create images that were both accurate and evoked the feelings they wished to inspire in their viewers.cx These artists should not be viewed as trying to deceive Church members or teach a false understanding of history. 

Since that time, some artists have successfully produced historically accurate art on behalf of the Mormon Church, including Anthony Sweat.cxi This artwork has been featured prominently in various LDS publications.  

  • References

    cix. See Anthony Sweat, Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, “Appendix: By the Gift and Power of Art,” in From Darkness unto Light (Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2015): 229–243, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    cx. Sweat added that his own initial efforts to depict the scene of translation had an unintended effect (where Smith looked like he was ill). Anthony Sweat, Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, “Appendix: By the Gift and Power of Art,” in From Darkness unto Light (Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2015): 237, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    cxi. See “Artwork of Anthony Sweat,” accessed February 1, 2024, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org. 

The CES Letter's Critique on the Availability of Information about the Book of Mormon Translation

Since learning this disturbing new information and feeling betrayed, I have been attacked and gaslighted by revisionist Mormon apologists claiming that it’s my fault and the fault of anyone else for not knowing this. “The information was there all along,” they say. “You should’ve known this,” they claim. These gaslighting revisionist apologists don’t have compassion, understanding, and empathy for those who are shocked to learn this faith-challenging information. How could it have been expected of me and any other member to know about and to embrace the rock in the hat translation when even religious professors at BYU rejected it as a fictitious lie meant to undermine Joseph Smith and the truth claims of the restoration?  

Many details known today about the Book of Mormon’s translation were not frequently taught by the Mormon Church throughout its history. There are likely a variety of reasons for this. In some cases, the information simply wasn’t known or believed to be true by Church leaders or members.cxii In other settings, presenting specific translation details may have been tangential to a publication’s primary purpose. And there is the possibility that some controversial historical information has been intentionally avoided in prominent Church publications, due to it being unsuitable for some audiences.  
 
However, it is also true that much information regarding Joseph Smith’s translation method has been published by the LDS Church in various settings for many decades, including in 1939,cxiii 1974,cxiv 1977,cxv and 1993.cxvi It is understandable that someone like the author of the CES Letter may not have been familiar with this information, but that doesn’t mean the LDS Church was trying to deceive its members or betray their trust. 

Even when Mormon leaders, members, or scholars are aware of essentially the same data, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will agree on its interpretation. The precise method of the Book of Mormon’s translation is not a revealed doctrine of the Church. Thus, it is understandable that two BYU scholars writing in the past may not share the consensus view among Latter-day Saint historians today. There is plenty of room in the Church for members and scholars to disagree on non-essential details of Church history, and hopefully to collectively gain a better understanding over time. 

  • References

    cxii. See, for instance, Richard Lyman Bushman, “Joseph Smith and Money Digging,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2016), 2–3, online at rsc.byu.edu.  

    cxiii. See Dr. Francis W. Kirkham, “The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon,” The Improvement Era 41, no. 10 (October 1939): 596–597, 630–632, online at archive.org. 

    cxiv. See “A Peaceful Heart,” The Children’s Friend (September 1974), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cxv. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift and Power of God,” Ensign (September 1977), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cxvi. See Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign (July 1993), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

Criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision According to the CES Letter

The CES Letter’s Perspective on the Four Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision

There are at least 4 different accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision given by him over the years. These other accounts are all different and unfamiliar to the account I grew up with. The 1832 handwritten account has no mention of two beings visiting him, it was written 12 years later, he said he was 15 years old, he already knew not to join any church, and there’s no description of being attacked by Satan.  

Joseph Smith produced four written accounts of his First Vision during his lifetime,cxvii in the years 1832,cxviii 1835,cxix 1838 (JS–H 1:5-20), and 1842.cxx There are also secondhand accounts from those who heard Smith relate the story.cxxi Smith claimed that in this vision he was personally visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ.cxxii  

Although each of the accounts differs somewhat in emphasis and in the finer details, a “basic consistency” runs through all of them.cxxiii It is actuallyAs historians generally recognize, it is quite common for details to vary between separate but true accounts of the same event, especially if their compositions vary according to time, circumstance, or intended audience. A well-known example of this phenomenon from the scriptures can be seen in the New Testament Gospels. The accounts of the visions experienced by Paul and Alma the Younger also show similar consistencies and variation.cxxiv  

Much like the author of the CES Letter, some Mormons may be unfamiliar with these different First Vision accounts and their points of divergencedistinction. However, the Mormon Church has published each of these accounts multiple times in the past,cxxv including comparing and contrasting the different details provided therein.cxxvi Rather than being a cause for doubt or concern, some historians have felt that the First Vision accounts come across as highly believable recollections of a lived experience.cxxvii  

Contradictions with the First Vision Alleged by the CES Letter

Joseph Smith wrote in his 1832 account that he knew the true church of Christ didn’t exist anymore. He went to pray for forgiveness for his sins. But in the 1838 account, he said that he wanted to know which church was the true church of Christ, because it had never entered into his heart that they were all wrong.  

The solution to this seeming inconsistency may have to do with the degree of belief or understanding held by Joseph Smith in different contexts. It appears he was indeed coming to suspect, based on what he read in the scriptures, that none of the Christian denominations in his day represented Christ’s true church. Not only does this idea turn up in the 1832 account (as pointed out in the CES Letter), but Smith said something similar in the 1838 account: “I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?” (JS–H 1:10; emphasis added).  

However, notice the degree of uncertainty and deliberation going on in his mind. Although Smith was clearly entertaining the possibility of a complete Christian apostasy, it doesn’t mean he was committed to that idea until after his First Vision. It apparently had not fully “sunk in” or entirely “entered into [his] heart” until the Lord clarified the matter (Joseph Smith–History 1:18).cxxviii It is also understandable that, years later, Smith might have struggled to recollect and record these types of nuances with perfect clarity.  

Late Appearance of First Vision Claims Claimed by the CES Letter

No one, not even his family, had ever heard of the First Vision from between 12-22 years after it supposedly occurred. The first written account was in his journal in 1832, and there’s no record of any vision before then. The First Vision appears to have not been widely taught to members of the Mormon Church before the 1840s.  

The assumption held by the author of the CES Letter seems to be that if Joseph Smith had actually experienced his First Vision, then reports of that event should turn up in the historical record long before Smith’s first autobiographical account given in 1832. One thing to consider is that Smith appears to have been somewhat reticent about his experience from the very beginning. He didn’t tell his own mother right after it happened, and when he told a local preacher he was immediately ridiculed (Joseph Smith–History 1:20–22). After that type of response, it isn’t hard to imagine that Smith would have been hesitant to share details about his vision until he was more firmly established in his prophetic calling.cxxix  

Moreover, the assertion in the CES Letter that there is “absolutely no record of any claimed ‘first vision’ prior to this 1832 account” is not accurate. Newspapers between 1829–1831 reported that Smith had claimed to see God, and even mocked him for it.cxxx If no one was speaking of the First Vision before 1832, one would wonder where the authors of these publications were getting this idea. Other historical sources provide additional evidence that, prior to 1832, Joseph’s thinking and revelations were informed by his First Vision experience.cxxxi 

The article cited by the CES Letter in support of this claim by James. B. Allen was published in 1966.cxxxii In the half-century since that time, further research has come to light surrounding the First Vision.cxxxiii It is true that there were infrequent mentions of the Vision prior to the 1840s, and it is also likely true that there were members of the Mormon Church who did not know about the Vision before then.  

However, as seen in the Palmyra newspaper called The Reflector, Smith was being criticized for that specific Vision during the 1830s.cxxxiv Other periodicals from the time period show a similar slant, widely mocking Smith’s different claims (for example, the Painesville Telegraph).cxxxv Notwithstanding this evidence of criticism of Smith’s claims, there are possible reasons why Smith may have wished to keep his visions to himself.cxxxvi He may have remembered the early persecution he and his family endured, or he may have believed that it was better to keep his sacred experiences private.    

The CES Letter’s Objections to Joseph Smith’s First Vision

Depending on the account, Joseph Smith is visited by a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, or the Father and the Son. The 1832 account says he was 15, while the other accounts say he was 14 when he had the vision. He has different reasons for praying in different accounts. The historical record shows there was no revival in Palmyra, New York in 1820. Lucy Mack Smith and William Smith stated they joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith’s death, while Joseph Smith claimed it was several years before his death. Why did he also hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead if he saw both Father and Son?  

It is true that the different accounts of the First Vision vary somewhat in the details. This can cause confusion and skepticism in some readers, which is natural. However, it is actually quite common for different accounts of the same true event to have differences, especially when the accounts have been composed at different times and under different circumstances.cxxxvii In fact, verbatim accounts that align in every respect are a sign of possible deception, indicating that the story may have been rehearsed. 

Joseph Smith did not state that there was a religious revival in Palmyra in 1820. He stated that there was “unusual excitement on the subject of religion” that “commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of the country” (JS–H 1:5). The correct wording is important because the historical record shows that this was in fact true. On June 28th, 1820 and July 5, 1820, the Palmyra Register ran articles about the death of a man resulting from alcohol poisoning.cxxxviii That man had attended a camp meeting “in this vicinity” held by the Society of Methodists, where he had imbibed too much alcohol. Multi-day camp meetings initiated by the Methodists in Palmyra and the neighboring town of Phelps (also called Vienna) happened regularly between 1816–1820, which attracted thousands of attendees from miles around. In particular, between 1819–1820, several towns within a 20-mile radius of Palmyra experienced heightened religious excitement, and Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians all reported significant membership gains throughout western New York during that time period.cxxxix 

Though some passages in the Book of Mormon may be ambiguous, others are clear that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings.cxl Shortly before his death, Smith stated, “I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it?”cxli The view of the Godhead expressed in the Book of Mormon is closely aligned to that of the early Israelite view.cxlii The confusion may arise because in Mormon theology, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit form something like a social trinity.cxliii This means that they are three distinct, separate beings in separate bodies, but have the same purposes and goals.  

  • References

    cxxxvii See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, First Vision Accounts,” Gospel Topics Essays, November 20, 2013, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cxxxviii See “Effects of Drunkenness” and “‘Plain Truth’ is received,” The Palmyra Register, June 28, 1820 and July 5, 1820, online at debunking-cesletter.com. 

    cxxxix See Pearl of Great Price Central, “Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820,” Joseph Smith–History Insight #7, February 24, 2020, online at pearlofgreatpricecentral.org 

    cxl See Brian C. Hales, “Trinitarian View,” The CES Letter: A Closer Look, accessed January 31, 2024, online at debunking-cesletter.com. 

    cxli Andrew F. Ehat, Lyndon W. Cook, eds., “16 June 1844 (1) (Sunday Mormon), Grove East of Temple,” in The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), online at rsc.byu.edu. 

    cxlii Michael R. Ash, Bamboozled by the “CES Letter” (self-published online, 2015): 40, online at . See also Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume 1: First Nephi, 6 volumes (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007): 38–39, 214–222. 

    cxliii See Brian C. Hales, “Trinitarian View,” The CES Letter: A Closer Look, accessed January 31, 2024, online at debunking-cesletter.com. See also, Ari B. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, “The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths,” FARMS Review of Books 13:2 (2001): 109–169, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org; David L. Paulsen and Ari D. Bruening, “The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi,” in Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, ed. Andrew C. Skinner and Gaye Strathearn (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell for Religious Scholarship, 2012): 191–233; Daniel C. Peterson, “Notes on Mormonism and the Trinity,” The Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41 (2020): 87–130, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org. 

Criticisms of the Book of Abraham According to the CES Letter

The CES Letter’s View on the Papyrus Found by Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith claimed the record was written by Abraham “by his own hand, upon papyrus,” which is still in the Book of Abraham today. It was thought the original papyrus was destroyed in a fire so that claim couldn’t be evaluated. However, the original papyrus Smith translated has been found and identified as parts of standard funerary texts that date to between the 3rd Century B.C.E. and the 1st Century C.E., long after Abraham lived. We know this is the correct papyrus because the hieroglyphics match in chronological order to the hieroglyphics in Smith’s Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which contains his Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL). We know the papyri fragments belonged to Smith because they were glued to backing paper and have drawings of a temple and maps of Kirtland, Ohio on the back. They also came with an affidavit signed by Emma Smith, confirming they belonged to Smith. 

The complete introduction of the initial publication of the Book of Abraham states, “A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” “Upon papyrus” is not a prepositional phrase directly modifying the previous phrase “written by his own hand.” Therefore, it merely informs the reader upon what “the ancient Records…from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham” were written. This introduction is not explicitly claiming that the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed contained Abraham’s own handwriting as the CES Letter asserts.  

“By/with the hand” is an ancient Egyptian idiom denoting authorship.cxliv This means that Abraham would have been the author of the text regardless of whether others later copied that text onto fresh papyrus. The text claims it is an autobiography: “I [Abraham] shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me” (Abr. 1:31). There is evidence that some of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries believed that the mummies and the papyri he possessed were as old as Abraham, but Oliver Cowdery published in a newspaper a letter wherein he corrects this misunderstanding, indicating that they have made no claims as to who the mummies were: “It has been said, that the purchasers of these antiquities pretend they have the body of Abraham, Abimelech, the king of the Philistines, Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, &c. &c. for the purpose of attracting the attention of the multitude, and gulling the unwary–which is utterly false. For the purpose of correcting these and other erroneous statements, concerning both the mummies and also the records, we give an extract of a letter written by a friend in this place, who possesses correct knowledge concerning this matter, to a gentleman who resides at a distance. Who these ancient inhabitants of Egypt are, we do not pretend to say, —neither does it matter to us.”cxlv Regardless of any correct or incorrect assumptions about the mummies and records that others have made, they do not necessarily reflect on the historicity of the Abrahamic text on the papyri.   

Many of the original papyri scrolls and papers owned by Smith were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire.cxlvi This includes the “long roll” or scroll, which was singled out by eyewitnesses of the translation efforts as being the source of the Book of Abraham.cxlvii Today, the Mormon Church owns eleven small fragments of papyri (containing portions of the Book of Breathing and Book of the Dead) that survived from the 1840s.cxlviii It is true that none of these fragments include text from the Book of Abraham, something that the LDS Church acknowledged shortly after receiving them from the Metropolitan Museum of Art over Thanksgiving weekend of 1967.cxlix However, the CES Letter’s claim that these fragments are definitively the papyri that Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham is contested by some scholars.cl Mormon Egyptologists John Gee, John S. Thompson, Kerry Muhlestein, and Stephen Smoot, as well as scholar Tim Barker, have each publicly challenged this claim within the past five years, demonstrating that any assumption the fragments were used to translate the Book of Abraham creates real historical and textual problems that are not resolved.cli   

As previously stated, contemporary eyewitness accounts point to a scroll that is no longer extant.clii The theory that the Book of Abraham was located on that scroll and that Smith translated the record from it is referred to as the “Missing Scroll” theory. Another popular theory, though less supported by the contemporary claims, is the “Catalyst” theory, in which it is postulated that the record never appeared on the scroll, but that Smith received revelation dictating the text after being inspired by looking at the papyri. Due to the lack of extant evidence, the source of the Book of Abraham cannot be determined at this time. 

The CES Letter’s Theory of Common Pagan Funerary Text in the Book of Abraham

Egyptologists have translated the source material for the Book of Abraham and found it to be a common pagan Egyptian funerary text for a deceased man named Hor around the 1st Century, C.E. it has nothing to do with Abraham or anything Smith claimed. The rediscovered papyri fragment that contains the image reproduced as Facsimile 1 had its holes filled in with pencil drawings that Egyptologists say is nonsense. The CES Letter includes an image that its author claims Facsimile 1 should look like, “based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt.” Non-Mormon Egyptologists disagree with every explanation or interpretation Smith gives for the figures on all three facsimiles. The author of the CES Letter was particularly disturbed to learn that Smith identified a god drawn with an erect penis as God the Father.  

Though the CES Letter claims that “respected modern Egyptologists” say the filled-in portions of Facsimile 1 are “nonsense,” it does not actually cite any Egyptologists saying this. The credited source is Kevin Mathie, who is a musical director and composer.cliii It is unknown who filled in the missing portions of the papyri when creating Facsimile 1, but it was likely Joseph Smith or Reuben Hedlock, the engraver of the woodcut used to reproduce the facsimile. Though modern editing standards would require that holes in the papyri be shown as such, editing standards in the early-to-mid 1800s were different. At that time the holes would have been filled in to be more aesthetically pleasing.cliv   

It is true that non-Mormon and Mormon Egyptologists recognize that some of the restorations were likely not accurate to the original image, especially in the way some of the texts were restored.clv Smith does not appear to be restoring ancient Egyptian religion but rather ancient concepts that might relate to Abraham’s religion. Therefore, his priority was likely not hyper-accuracy in restoring the text (that he does not even translate) and illustrations from the Egyptian vignettes. However, at least one non-Mormon Egyptologist agrees that Smith was correct in some of his restorations and many of the concepts in his restorations and explanations do have ancient precedent.clvi  

The CES Letter states that this same scene has been discovered elsewhere in Egypt, but that is not accurate. There are unique features on this image that have no known parallel.clvii The reconstructed image provided in the CES Letter was taken without attribution from Charles M. Larson’s By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri.clviii Larson is also not an Egyptologist, but a Social Studies teacher.clix Amateurs can certainly engage in solid research, but when the CES Letter misidentifies these sources as Egyptologists, it can give readers false confidence that the scholarship is correct when it may not be. This image is a notable example: the reconstruction is inaccurate, according to both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists.clx 

Non-Mormon Egyptologists do disagree with many of Smith’s interpretations of the images on the facsimiles included with the Book of Abraham. However, Mormon Egyptologists believe the situation is more complex. A discussion of the facsimiles will follow in the next subsection. Regarding the figure Smith identified as God sitting on his throne, however, it is unclear why the author of the CES Letter finds this “disturbing.” Smith did not draw this picture, but merely stated that the image represents an ancient depiction of God. Gods were often depicted with ithyphallic images in antiquity.clxi 

Errors with the Book of Abraham Facsimiles Stated in the CES Letter

Respected non-LDS Egyptologists say that Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles is gibberish and has absolutely nothing to do with the papyri and facsimiles and what they actually say. On Facsimile 1, the names are wrong, the Abraham scene is rendered incorrectly, and Smith names gods that are not part of the Egyptian belief system or of any other known mythology or belief system. On Facsimile 2, Smith translated 11 figures, and none of the names are correct. NOne of the gods exist in Egyptian religion or any other recorded mythology, and he misidentifies every god on the facsimile. On Facsimile 3, he misidentifies the Egyptian god Osiris as Abraham, the Egyptian god Isis as the Pharaoh, the Egyptian god Maat as the Prince of the Pharaoh, the Egyptian god Anubis as a slave, misidentifies the dead Hor as a waiter, and twice misidentifies a female as a male. 

A study has shown that Egyptologists themselves are often incorrect when they try to determine how an ancient Egyptian would have interpreted different symbols.clxii Egyptologists who have published on the meaning of the various items in the facsimiles often do not agree among themselves.clxiii Egyptologists also rarely have professional training in the correct Greco-Roman era or the Demotic script necessary to critically assess the iconography associated with the Book of Abraham.clxiv Furthermore, ancient Egyptians could give a symbol many different meanings, making it difficult to tell which one would be “correct” in the context of the facsimiles.clxv  

Regarding Facsimile 1, in addition to being a unit of measurement the cubit also referred to an angle of the sky, so that when tracking the stars over the course of a year, they would move one cubit for one day. Smith’s statement of “one day to a cubit” fits well in the ancient world.clxvi The word “Kolob” has the same root structure as Semitic words related to prominent stars in the sky.clxvii Additionally, Smith called the Earth “Jah-oh-eh” and later clarified that it meant “O the Earth!”clxviii Assuming Smith styled the Semitic yod as the English letter J,  “O Earth” in ancient Egyptian would have a pronunciation corresponding well to Joseph Smith’s rendering.clxix In Facsimile 2, Smith identifies an upside-down cow as the sun. Hathor, symbolized by the cow, was the protector of the sun disc, and was even sometimes identified as the sun itself.clxx Elsewhere, Smith states that the four canopic jars represent the “four quarters” of the Earth, an idiom in his day to mean the four cardinal points on a compass. One of the roles of the four Sons of Horus symbolized by the jars was to represent the four cardinal directions.clxxi Smith identifies Min, god of fertility and the harvest, as God sitting on his throne. Ancient Egyptians identified this figure as the “Great God,” the “Lord of Life,” and the “Lord of All.”clxxii Smith identified another figure as Abraham, while Egyptologists indicate that it is the deceased as Osiris. Smith’s reinterpretation of Osiris to represent Abraham has ancient precedent, as early Jews and Christians made similar connections.clxxiii Smith identified another figure as the Pharaoh, while Egyptologists have identified it as Isis. Isis’s name means “throne,” and she held a shared identity with the office of the Pharaoh.clxxiv In vignettes from the (Ptolemaic) time period in which the papyri originate, the genders of deities and priests are sometimes switched.clxxv Additionally, the name “Shulem” is widely attested to in Semitic languages from Abraham’s time period, as well as from the Ptolemaic time period.clxxvi On the interpretation of Facsimile 3, Smith also noted that Abraham was “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy in the king’s court.” There are numerous ancient accounts of Abraham teaching the Egyptians astronomy.clxxvii  

Elsewhere in the text of the Book of Abraham, the place name of “Olishem” (Abr. 1:10) and the word “Shinehah” (Abr. 3:13), which Smith identified with “the sun,” were given. Ancient inscriptions mention a place called Ulišum in the region of southern Turkey, which is linguistically related to Olishem and in the vicinity of Abraham’s likely homeland, just as the Book of Abraham claims. While the exact location of Ulišum has not yet been located by archaeologists, they are confident that it was in the general region where they are searching, thus making it a likely candidate for the Olishem of the Book of Abraham.clxxviii In the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts (ancient Egyptian religious writings), a term used to describe the path of the sun through the sky, or its ecliptic, is š-n-ḫꜣ. It is linguistically acceptable for this term to have been pronounced similarly to “shi-ne-hah.”clxxix Additionally, Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham describes Kolob governing lesser stars, which is similar to a concept in Egyptian cosmology in which a celestial body governed everything it encircled.clxxx 

Smith does appear to have made some connections on the facsimiles and in the Book of Abraham that Egyptologists could recognize as reflecting the ancient understanding. We cannot yet say that all of Smith’s understandings of the vignettes have ancient roots (some of the explanations may simply be him reinterpreting the vignettes to illustrate Abraham’s story);clxxxi however, many have been shown to be quite plausible. We look forward to further research on these matters.

Mormon Cosmology Conflict Claimed in the CES Letter

The Book of Abraham teaches an incorrect Newtonian view of the universe. Einsteinian physics has succeeded Newtonian astronomical concepts and models of the universe. Keith E. Norma, an LDS scholar, has said that for the LDS Church, “It is no longer possible to pretend there is no conflict.” Grant Palmer, a Mormon historian and CES teacher, agreed and cited Norman’s work in his book, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. 

This supposition is incorrect. Although the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) document created in Kirtland, Ohio by William W. Phelps appears to have a Newtonian view of the universe,clxxxii the Book of Abraham itself teaches a geocentric model of the universe instead.clxxxiii  

Additionally, the cited paper by Norman only mentions the Book of Abraham once, and only in a speculative context. The premise of the article is that the concept of eternal matter conflicts with the Big Bang Theory.clxxxiv However, Stephen Hawking explained that infinitely dense matter existed prior to the Big Bang in what is known as a singularity.clxxxv This negates Norman’s theory and thus, there is no conflict between Mormon cosmology and the current scientific understanding. 

The CES Letter’s Statement on the King James Version Text in the Book of Abraham

Much of the Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are identical or close paraphrases of the KJV Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12.If the Book of Abraham is an ancient text written “by his hand upon papyrus” thousands of years ago, why does it have 17th Century KJV text in it? 

While the Creation accounts in Genesis and the Book of Abraham do closely parallel each other in important ways, there are also significant differences between them. The Abraham account speaks of a council of Gods, rather than a singular God, and these Gods “organized” rather than “created.” It does not separate the creation period into “days,” but leaves the timeline vague. Rather than seeing that the creation elements were “good,” the Gods saw that they “obeyed.”clxxxvi 

Since every biblical text we have today is a much later copy than its original source material, it is possible that any similarities in the Creation texts from Mosaic and Abrahamic tradition could be due to both records stemming from the same source. Additionally, there are Hebrew traditions of Abraham learning of the Creation, such as The Apocalypse of Abraham, so it is possible that God gave two prophets similar revelations.clxxxvii Also, the Book of Abraham is a translation. This means that Smith, as translator, would have put the ideas from the record into his own words. It would be natural for him to use the Bible text he was familiar with as a guide when the concepts being expressed were the same.

  • References

    clxxxvi See John Gee, “The Creation,” in An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2017): 129–142, online at rsc.byu.edu 

    clxxxvii See Amy Elizabeth Paulsen-Reed, “The Origins of the Apocalypse of Abraham,” Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Divinity School (2016): 185–187, online at dash.harvard.edu. 

The CES Letter’s Critique of Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham

There are anachronisms in the Book of Abraham like the words “Chaldeans,” “Egyptus,” and “Pharaoh.” The text also refers to the facsimiles in a few verses. As noted and conceded in the Church’s “Translation and HIstoricity of the Book of Abraham,” the facsimiles didn’t even exist in Abrham’s time as they are standard first century C.E. pagan Egyptian funerary documents.   

As noted above, the Book of Abraham is purported to be a translation. Translators have the task of making their work understandable for their audiences. Most languages do not translate word for word, meaning that some of the phrasing might be Smith’s. He simply chose words that his audience was familiar with, if that is the case. Suppose the text said, “ruler of Egypt.” It would make sense to choose the word “Pharaoh” when recording the translation, as that was a term 19th-century speakers commonly used. Another possible explanation is that Smith received revelation dictating the translation to him. 

Further, while the Chaldeans are traditionally known as a group in Southern Mesopotamia much later than the time of Abraham (thus anachronistic), there is inscriptional evidence demonstrating that the Chaldeans resided earlier in the area of Southern Turkey and Northern Syria.clxxxviii This understanding places their origins closer to Abraham’s time and nearer the homeland of Abraham as portrayed in the Book of Abraham. 

Based on the evidence, it seems that after Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the “long scroll,” he took three pictures that were on at least one other papyri and used them out of context, likening them to the story of Abraham. Why he did that is not fully understood; however, the three pictures do seem to relate to themes of ancient temple progression that the life of Abraham also seems to reflect. Such correspondences may have inspired Joseph Smith to connect the two traditions.clxxxix Given that at least one of the vignettes was not on the same scroll as the Book of Abraham, it should not be assumed that any of the vignettes were ever original to the Book of Abraham. Further, the Mormon Church’s essay did not state that the vignettes reproduced in the facsimiles did not exist in Abraham’s time. It stated that the fragments of papyri in their possession did not date to Abraham’s day.cxc  

A closer look at the Book of Abraham manuscripts from the Kirtland era indicates that vs. 1:12 and 1:14 appear to be editorial insertions.cxci If they reflected what was translated, then the text must be referring either to 1) another picture that Abraham had in mind, or 2) the vignette for Facsimile 1 that Smith possessed, and the verses in question were editorials added to the Abraham text at the time the papyri was originally made. It is also possible that the insertions in the manuscripts were made in Smith’s day to reference the images that Smith himself added to the text in the publication. 

“Light from Kolob” Book of Abraham Criticisms in the CES Letter

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states that the sun receives its “light from the revolutions of Kolob.” The sun’s source of energy is actually internal and caused by thermonuclear fusion. It doesn’t shine because of any external source. 

Smith’s explanation actually states that “it is said by the Egyptians” that the sun receives its light from the revolutions of Kolob “through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash.” The correct wording is important to the claim the CES Letter is making. Smith qualified the statement as saying it was an Egyptian belief, not his own or that of the prophet Abraham, and he merely defined “Kae-e-vanrash” as “the governing power.”  

In Mormon belief, God is the creator or organizer of all matter in the universe, being Himself “the governing power.” Therefore, the sun receiving its power from thermonuclear fusion is, in the view of Mormons, by God’s design. This is not what Smith’s explanation for the figure was describing, however, and as noted, he stated specifically that it was not his own belief. 

The CES Letter’s View on the “Philosophy of a Future State”

Joseph Smith owned a book by Thomas Dick called “The Philosophy of a Future State.” Oliver Cowdery quoted lengthy excerpts from it in the Messenger and Advocate newspaper. Many features of the Book of Abraham resemble concepts from this book, including that of eternal progression, that matter is eternal, that Creatio ex nihilo is incorrect, that numerous stars were peopled with progressive beings called “intelligences,” and that the systems of the universe revolve around a point in the center, the throne of God. 

Though it is likely that Joseph Smith owned a copy of The Philosophy of a Future State, the Nauvoo library where Smith donated the book merely records it as “Dick’s Philosophy.cxcii Dick also wrote a book titled The Philosophy of Religion, which may have been the book in question.cxciii It is true, however, that Oliver Cowdery quoted from The Philosophy of a Future State in The Messenger and Advocate.cxciv  

In the Klaus Hansen quote from the CES Letter, he claims that in the Book of Abraham, Kolob is at the center of the universe while other stars revolve around it in ever-diminishing order. However, the Book of Abraham teaches a geocentric model of the universe where the Earth is at the center, not Kolob. This is why revolutions are longer as you draw nearer to Kolob (Smith states in his explanation that one day in Kolob’s time is equal to 1,000 years here on Earth). This is the opposite of what Hansen and Dick claim.  

“The throne of God” is a biblical phrase (Matt. 23:22, Heb. 12:2, Rev. 7:15). It is natural that two books focusing on religion might use phrases from the Bible, even if they are used in contrasting ways, as Dick and Smith use them. Additionally, in the 19th century, one definition of “intelligence” was “a spiritual being.” The example sentence given in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary refers to superior intelligences inhabiting the universe.cxcv If the Book of Abraham is a translation, “intelligences” could be Smith’s word choice rather than Abraham’s. It would not be unusual for two books published within 20 years of one another to use the same term for the concept of intelligent beings existing elsewhere in the universe. However, the idea in Dick’s theology that these intelligent beings “populate numerous stars” is not in the Book of Abraham as the CES Letter erroneously claims. The Philosophy of a Future State also does not reject Creatio ex nihilo. It embraces the idea, suggesting that God created the universe from nothing in such a way that it would begin to evolve from its initial creation.cxcvi  

While there are similarities between the two books, there are wide convergences as well. The Book of Abraham often rejects the ideas espoused in The Philosophy of a Future State and teaches their opposite. Though Cowdery quoted from its passages and it is possible that Smith owned a copy of Dick’s book, any influence over the contents of the Book of Abraham is speculative. 

  • References

    cxcii. See Kenneth W. Godfrey, “A Note on the Nauvoo Library and Literary Institute,” BYU Studies Quarterly 14, no. 3 (July 1, 1974): 386–389, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu. 

    cxciii. See Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling (New York, NY: Random House, 2005): 648, footnote 81, 1st Vintage Books edition (2007).  

    cxciv. See Oliver Cowdery, “Extract From Dick’s Philosophy: Section X,” The Messenger and Advocate 3, no. 3 (December 1836): 423–425, online at contentdm.lib.byu.edu. 

    cxcv. Webster’s Dictionary 1828, “Intelligence,” American Dictionary of the English Language, accessed February 5, 2005, online at webstersdictionary1828.com. 

    cxcvi. See Jeff Lindsay, “Joseph Smith’s Universe vs. Some Wonders of Chinese Science Fiction,” The Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 29 (2018): 105–152, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org. 

CES Letter Commentary on Elder Holland’s BBC Interview about the Book of Abraham

Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland was asked in a BBC interview with John Sweeney about the Book of Abraham. He said he didn’t know how it was translated or what the vehicle was for the translation, but that it was translated into the word of God. Is that really the best that a “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” can do? “I don’t know” isn’t good enough when this is causing people to leave the Mormon Church. Respected Egyptian scholars and Egyptologists like Dr. James H. Breasted, Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, and Dr. A.H. Sayce all said that the Book of Abraham translated incorrectly and that Smith was ignorant of basic Egyptian facts. Another Egyptologist, Dr. Robert Ritner, gave a rebuttal to the Church’s Gospel Topics Essay, “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham,” that was sobering and devastating. A video and PDF linked in the CES Letter give a complete, thorough, and unbiased overview of the issues with the Book of Abraham. Though these last two offerings are anonymous, you don’t have to have a PhD or be an Egyptologist to understand the problems with the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s claims of being a translator. 

While it is understandable that some viewers of this interview, including the author of the CES Letter, would feel confused or frustrated by Jeffrey R. Holland’s response, his response is not surprising. The method of translation of the Book of Abraham is in dispute.cxcvii Even Joseph Smith’s own scribes and close friends gave differing accounts of the translation process.cxcviii We cannot expect Holland to know something that professionally trained Egyptologists and historians do not know, as prophets are not all-knowing.cxcix Unless something has specifically been revealed to them by God, they use their own judgments, knowledge, and opinions to inform their decisions the way we all do. 

Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator: An Inquiry Conducted was written by F. S. Spalding and published in 1912.cc Though the CES Letter repeatedly mentions the beliefs of “modern Egyptologists” regarding the Book of Abraham, each of the Egyptologists quoted in this portion were dead by 1943.cci The field of Egyptology has progressed considerably in the 80 years since then. Additionally, Spalding’s methodology in conducting his study was flawed. Not only did he disqualify Mormons from participating in the conversation, he sent warnings, instructions, and biased correspondence to the experts he requested statements from; he concealed correspondence that disagreed with his premise; he advised the experts that the original documents were available for study, when they were not; he erroneously claimed that the Mormon Church declared the papyri to be the autobiographical writing and sketches of Abraham himself, rather than a copy; he announced that Smith would be judged on his ability as a translator, though none of his experts translated any Egyptian writing from the papyri themselves; and he claimed the experts were in complete agreement in their judgments when they repeatedly contradicted one another. The experts themselves did not agree when they spoke without collusion; they showed signs of being coached on what to say; with one exception (that of Breasted), their notes were brief and contemptuous, showing no actual analysis of Smith’s claims; they admitted that they found the exercise foolish and beneath their time; they claimed that there were numerous identical vignettes found, but did not produce any in their rebuttals; and they did not translate any of the text on the vignettes themselves.ccii Though the experts agreed on the sole point that Smith was incorrect in his explanations of the facsimiles, these numerous flaws in methodology cast doubt on Spalding’s work as a serious critique.  

Dr. Ritner is the only “modern Egyptologist” that the CES Letter cites. Of the claimed modern Egyptologists mentioned in the document, one third are not Egyptologists and one half were dead by 1943. The overstating of credentials for these sources raises concern about the accuracy of the information provided in the CES Letter. Ritner’s premise is that the Book of Abraham was crafted by Smith with the aid of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the few surviving papyri fragments. Mormon Egyptologists and historians have presented evidence calling this claim into question.cciii Though the CES Letter claims that Ritner responded to the Mormon Church’s essay in a “sobering and devastating” fashion, he does not address many of the points made in the essay.cciv Ritner did not discuss any of the following evidence named by the Mormon Church: ancient near Eastern poetic structures found in the Book of Abraham; the ancient Mesopotamian deity of Elkenah that Smith identified on Facsimile 1; the numerous extra-biblical accounts of Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians, an Egyptian text not discovered until the 20th century that describes the Pharaoh attempting to sacrifice Abraham before he was saved by an angel, and Abraham teaching in the Pharaoh’s court, as detailed in the Book of Abraham; and other details from extra-biblical accounts that align with details in the Book of Abraham, including Abraham’s father, Terah, being an idolatrous man, a famine in Abraham’s homeland, his familiarity with Egyptian idols, and his being younger than 75 years old when he left Haran.ccv Because Ritner did not address any of this provided evidence, it is difficult to agree with the CES Letter that his rebuttal was both “sobering and devastating.” Though he made valid points in his own essay that the LDS Church may wish to address in the future, his silence on these issues means that his response is not comprehensive.  

The cited video and corresponding PDF (based on the video) contain inaccuracies regarding the history of the papyri. Additionally, though the CES Letter states that the source of the video is unbiased, it was produced by MormonThink, a website dedicated to critiquing the Mormon Church. One need not be an Egyptologist with a PhD in order to adequately discuss the Book of Abraham, but one should strive for accuracy if they wish to be taken seriously on the subject. Emma Smith and her second husband sold the papyri and mummies that Smith obtained to a man named Abel Combs. The video and PDF both claim that Combs sold the collection to Wyman’s Museum, which moved to Chicago. This is incorrect. Two of the mummies and the papyrus scrolls were first sold to the St. Louis Museum, which was located in Wyman’s Hall but was not called Wyman’s Museum.ccvi The other two mummies remained with Combs, as did the fragments that were later returned to the Mormon Church. The museum eventually closed and its curator moved to Chicago, taking the mummies and the scrolls with him to his new position at the Chicago Museum, which subsequently became known as the Wood Museum.ccvii These items were still there in 1871 when the museum was destroyed by the Great Chicago Fire.ccviii The video and PDF further state that Combs gave the fragments to his servant, Alice Heusser, whose nephew eventually sold them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In reality, upon his death they were given to his servant Charlotte Benecke Weaver. Weaver’s daughter, Alice Heusser, first approached the museum with them in 1918, asking them to examine them. Museum staff declined. Approximately 30 years later, a museum curator reached out. Heusser had passed away, but her husband sold them the fragments. In 1967, the museum returned them to the LDS Church.ccix In another claim, the video and PDF assert that the image in Facsimile 3 was at the end of the “long roll,” after the image from Facsimile 1 and the Book of Breathings. However, Gustav Seyffarth, the only Egyptologist ever to examine the papyrus scrolls, noted that they contained an additional record after the image in Facsimile 3. He did not provide the name of this record, only stating that it contained, “The beginning of the Book of….”ccx While the original scroll is no longer extant and this cannot be confirmed, it is inaccurate to state unequivocally that the image in Facsimile 3 was the end of the scroll when evidence exists to the contrary. Further, evidence exists to suggests the “long scroll” from which the Book of Abraham was translated is not likely the scroll on which Facsimiles 1 and 3 appear.ccxi  

While it cannot yet be proven that Smith was accurate in every explanation and the source material for the Book of Abraham is still unknown, there is evidence supporting many of Smith’s claims and explanations. Many of the areas the CES Letter deems settled are actually in dispute. It is understandable that some may find these conflicting conclusions confusing and frustrating to navigate. It is also understandable that some may doubt the veracity of Smith’s claims. However, the matter is far from conclusive and there is evidence supporting the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

Polygamy & Polyandry Criticisms Alleged by the CES Letter

Joseph Smith’s Wives and Polygamy: The CES Letter’s Allegation

Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women, and 11 of those women were already legally married to other men. Apostle Orson Hyde was sent away on a mission so that Smith could secretly marry his wife. 

It is unfortunate but understandable that the author of the CES Letter did not know the history of polygamy (called plural marriage) in the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church has never denied that its founder, Joseph Smith, had multiple wives. Throughout much of the 20th Century, however, the LDS Church did downplay the practice of plural marriage.ccxii This would naturally lead to confusion on the part of the author. The sources cited in the CES Letter indicate that the Mormon Church admitted Smith’s polygamy with multiple women for the first time in 2014. However, in 1886, Assistant Historian for the LDS Church, Andrew Jenson, named those wives in The Historical Record, a periodical he published to detail Latter-day Saint history.ccxiii This information has been publicly available and repeated in Mormon Church publications since that time.ccxiv Church leaders even collected sworn affidavits from Smith’s wives.ccxv 

It should be noted that in early Mormon practice, there were three different types of unions practiced by the members, including by Smith. Those involved civil marriages that were solely for the duration of this lifetime on Earth; eternity-only temple sealings, which were unions designed only for the next life and not for this one; and joint marriages plus temple sealings intended to last not only for this lifetime, but also the next life.ccxvi Some of the women listed as Smith’s “wives” were only sealings for eternity, not marriages during their lives on Earth. There is no evidence that those particular unions involved sexual intimacy of any kind. Less than half of Smith’s unions appear to have been consummated, and in those that were, sexual relations were infrequent.ccxvii The unions that the CES Letter refers to as “polyandrous” were eternity-only sealings, not marriages for this lifetime. These sealings do not appear to have been consummated marriages.ccxviii Several of Smith’s wives were only sealed to him for the first time after his death.ccxix 

Regarding Orson Hyde and his wife Marinda, Hyde left on his mission on April 15, 1840, and returned home on December 7, 1842.ccxx There are two dates recorded for Marinda’s sealing to Smith. Smith’s scribe, Thomas Bullock, recorded it as taking place in April of 1842.ccxxi However, in a sworn affidavit Marinda Hyde gave to the Mormon Church, she stated it occurred in May of 1843, which would have been six months after her husband returned from his mission.ccxxii There are also conflicting reports of whether or not Hyde knew of this sealing in advance.ccxxiii Hyde was not sent on his mission so that Smith could secretly marry his wife, as the earliest date for the sealing was two and a half years after he left, and was closer to his return date than his leaving. 

The CES Letter’s Commentary on the Types of Sealings in Polygamy

The Mormon Church and unofficial apologists claim these polyandrous marriages were “eternal” or “dynastic” and didn’t involve sexual relations. Smith tested Heber C. Kimball and his wife Vilate by telling them he wanted to marry Vilate. After a lot of stress and prayer, they finally agreed, only for Smith to tell them it was a test and they passed. Why all the stress and worry if it was just an innocuous dynastic sealing? Among the wives was a mother/daughter pair and 3 sister sets. If these were non-sexual dynastic sealings, why would he need to be married to both family members? Couldn’t the women just be sealed together in family sealings? 

In Mormon theology, a “sealing” is a way to bind families together in the eternities. Mormons believe this ordinance is necessary to receive their fullest potential in the next life. Couples and families reach that potential together, and cannot do so on their own. A so-called “dynastic sealing” is a way of linking multiple families together through the sealing process or covenant.ccxxiv It is true that some of Smith’s sealings were done for this reason, notably with Helen Mar Kimball (the daughter of Smith’s friend, Heber C. Kimball).ccxxv Another possibility is his sealing to Fanny Young (elder sister of Brigham Young).ccxxvi Some dynastic unions were eternity-only, but some were true marriages for both this life and the next, which included the potential for sexual relations. It is unclear why the CES Letter conflates “dynastic” with “celibate.” 

Regarding the morality of women being sealed to Smith rather than their legal husbands, this was the woman’s choice to do so. Some of those women were married to men who refused to join the Mormon Church, and therefore could not be sealed to their wives.ccxxvii They believed that in order for those women to receive all of their promised blessings in the next life, they needed to be sealed to a man who was willing to partake in the sealing covenant after being baptized into the Mormon Church. (Baptism is a prerequisite before being sealed.) In other cases, the reason for the sealing to Smith rather than their legal husbands is unknown.ccxxviii At least some of the husbands knew and approved of these sealings, which do appear to have been made for dynastic reasons.ccxxix In all cases, however, it was the woman’s choice.ccxxx Because under Mormon belief, each woman would need to be individually sealed to a man in order to receive those promised blessings in the next life, being the sibling or parent of a sealed woman was not enough. This is why Smith was sealed to some mother/daughter and sister pairs.  

It is true that some individuals and couples were tested by Smith prior to their own sealings.ccxxxi Heber C. Kimball and his wife Vilate were were among those couples. They did not know at the time that it was only a test designed to show the seriousness of the covenant they were making, and the Abrahamic sacrifice that plural marriage was for the Mormons living during that time period (D&C 132:56, 50–51; D&C 98:14–15; D&C 136:31, 37).ccxxxii Though this may seem cruel to some readers, the Kimballs were rewarded immediately afterward for their faithfulness by receiving the sealing ordinance, one of the very first such sealings ever performed.ccxxxiii

The Ages of Joseph Smith’s Wives: The CES Letter’s View

Of the 34 wives, 7 of them were teenage girls as young as 14. Smith was 37 when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball. That’s a 23-year age gap. Even back then, that was shocking. Smith married her after that disturbing test he gave her parents. Her mother was very concerned and worried. If this was a non-sexual dynastic linking, why was her mother so upset over the marriage? 

It is true that Helen Mar Kimball was only 14 years old at the time of their sealing; however, theirs was by all evidence a non-sexual relationship.ccxxxiv Their union was instigated by her father for the purpose of linking the Kimball and Smith families in the eternities.ccxxxv Though the idea of a young teenager being married today is rightfully shocking and disturbing to most readers, it was not shocking “even back then” as the CES Letter claims. Along the frontier in the 19th century United States, which included Nauvoo, Illinois and later Utah, it was not unusual for young brides to marry much older men.ccxxxvi In 1890, 50 years after Smith’s sealing to Kimball, the age of consent was 12 years or younger in 38 states.ccxxxvii Though there is no evidence of sexuality in this union, it is understandable that this may be difficult for some readers to condone.  

The CES Letter implies that Smith was sealed to Helen Kimball shortly after the test he gave her parents. However, in reality it was two years later.ccxxxviii The two incidents were not connected. 

 As for why Vilate Kimball was upset over the sealing, her husband, Heber C. Kimball, was already married to a second wife, Sarah Noon.ccxxxix Though the two women got along well with one another, she understood what a difficult sacrifice it was to practice plural marriage, and had hoped her daughter would not need to endure a similar sacrifice. 

The CES Letter’s View on the Order of Sealings and Marriages

Joseph Smith died without being sealed to his children or parents. If the primary motive of those sealings was to be connected in the afterlife, what does it say about Smith’s priorities if he was sealed to a non-related, already married woman and her already married daughter before being sealed to his own family members? He was married to at least 22 other women before being sealed to his first and only legal wife, Emma. Emma was not aware of most of those other sealings. Why was she the 23rd wife sealed and not the first? 

Parent-to-child seedlings did not begin until the Nauvoo temple was completed after Smith’s death.ccxl Though Smith taught that these types of sealings were possible,ccxli and early Mormons often temporarily performed certain ordinances outside of temples while they were being built, Brigham Young confirmed that this type of sealing was only to be done inside of temples.ccxlii Because the Nauvoo temple was not complete until after Smith’s death, he was not sealed to his parents or his children during his lifetime. 

Emma Smith famously and understandably vacillated between acceptance and anger over the polygamy doctrine.ccxliii While there are reports of her having participated in some of Smith’s sealings to other women,ccxliv after his death she also denied that the practice had ever taken place.ccxlv Because of this, it is impossible to determine what she knew and when she knew it.ccxlvi 

Mormons believe that sealings are eternally binding covenants with God, with serious consequences if those covenants are broken.ccxlvii At that time, part of the sealing covenant was accepting the plural marriage commandment (D&C 132). Because Emma Smith did not accept this part of the covenant, Smith believed he could not be sealed to her until she did accept it without her potentially facing grave repercussions from God. It is understandable that some would feel sorrow and anger on her behalf over this, but Smith seemed to believe he was protecting her, rather than punishing her. 

What the CES Letter Says About Joseph Smith's Polygamy Coercion

Joseph Smith took Helen Mar Kimball’s hand in marriage while promising her and her family eternal salvation if she accepted. Some of the other marriages included threats that Smith was going to be killed by an angel with a drawn sword if the girls didn’t marry him. How is it okay that he coerced these girls into marrying him? 

While Helen Mar Kimball did intimate at one time that she believed Smith promised her and her family eternal salvation if she was sealed to him,ccxlviii she later explained that she had been too young or foolish to understand what Smith was teaching her.ccxlix Her parents did not appear to share that same understanding of his words.ccl  

The CES Letter is incorrect in its statement regarding the angel and Smith’s life being in danger.ccli Smith did not state that he would be slain by an angel with a drawn sword if the girls didn’t accept Smith’s proposals. He would be slain by the angel if he didn’t propose the sealings to them. He was the one commanded to enter into plural marriage.cclii  

While in today’s world we are very cognizant of power imbalances when it comes to romantic relationships, it is important to recognize that none of the women in question felt they were manipulated into their relationships with Smith. The women were always given a choice in the matter, and those choices were respected. Some of the women Smith approached refused him without any repercussions.ccliii Sealings performed later in the Nauvoo temple required all participants to acknowledge that they were there willingly.ccliv  

The CES Letter’s Examination of D&C 132 and Polygamy

D&C 132 has very specific and bizarre rules on how polygamy is to be followed. The only form of polygamy permitted is a union with a virgin after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If she doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and can still have other wives. If the new wife is not a virgin before marriage and completely monogamous after marriage, she’ll be destroyed. The man only needs to desire another wife. He doesn’t need a specific revelation from the Prophet allowing it. D&C 132 is unequivocal that polygamy is only permitted “to multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men.” This is similar to the Book of Mormon, which only allows polygamy when God commands it to “raise up seed.” This isn’t how Smith practiced polygamy. He married women who were already married and not virgins, without the knowledge or consent of his or their spouses, while one man was on a mission and one woman was pregnant. He used threats or promises of salvation to coerce women into marrying him.  

While Doctrine and Covenants 132 can be confusing to understand in places, the CES Letter makes multiple misstatements in this subsection. The term “virgin” in this section does not mean someone who has never engaged in sexual relations the way the CES Letter posits. We know this because many of the women Smith and other early Mormons were sealed in plural marriages with were either already civilly married to other men or were widows or divorcées.cclv When the term is used in the scriptures, it typically refers to a young woman who is morally pure according to her situation in life. 

One of the definitions of “destroy” in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary is “to take away; to cause to cease.”cclvi Mormons believe that if they keep their temple covenants, they will be able to have eternal increase, progression, and blessings (D&C 131:4, D&C 132:17). When the sealing revelation in D&C 132 speaks of people being destroyed if they don’t accept the plural marriage portion of the covenant, it means that their potential for further growth and increase is taken away. Additionally, the revelation states that men must “abide in [Christ’s] covenant” and “shall commit no murder to shed innocent blood” (D&C 132:19). To say that they have no restrictions on them except to wish for another wife is inaccurate. While it is true that men did not need to receive a direct commandment from the prophet to enter the practice of plural marriage, all men needed to obtain approval from their Church leaders before entering one.cclvii 

The CES Letter is also incorrect when it says that the only reasons given for plural marriage are “to multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men.” The section gives multiple other reasons: “to multiply and replenish the earth,” “to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world,” “for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men,” “for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified” (D&C 132:63); “to prove you all, as I did Abraham,” and finally, “that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice” (D&C 132:51).  

It is not accurate to say definitively that Smith did not follow the guidelines for managing plural marriage given in the sealing revelation. The women in question were apparently morally pure; while we cannot determine whether it is true in every case, there is clear evidence that many of the spouses knew about the sealings in advance, and some even participated in those sealings;cclviii it is unclear if Orson Hyde was on a mission or had already returned home at the time of the sealing between Marinda Hyde and Smith;cclix and more than one of the women was pregnant at the time of the sealing, which actually indicates a lack of sexual activity.cclx Additionally, the claim that the women were coerced appears to be incorrect.cclxi 

What the CES Letter Says About Joseph Smith’s Bad Behavior

Joseph Smith’s pattern of behavior over at least 10 years of his life was to keep secrets, to be deceptive, and to be dishonest, both privately and publicly. It paints a very disturbing pattern and picture. He denied practicing polygamy in public sermons and had an illegal marriage to Fanny Alger, which Oliver Cowdery called, “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” He practiced polygamy before the sealing authority was given, which meant the relationship with Alger was adultery. He destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor because it exposed polygamy, which led to his death. Emma didn’t know about these marriages until after the fact. The other Mormons didn’t know until 1852. He asked 31 witnesses to sign an affidavit published in the October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons saying that he did not practice polygamy. But several people were secret polygamists at that time or knew that Smith was one, including Eliza R. Snow who was one of Smith’s wives, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and Bishop Whitney and his wife, who both witnessed Smith marry their daughter shortly before the affidavit was written. What does it say about Joseph Smith, having his wives and close friends lie and perjure themselves by claiming he wasn’t a polygamist?  

Little is known about Joseph Smith’s relationship with Fanny Alger. Most of the information available is based on second- or third-hand sources that came decades later.cclxii Alger appears to have been Smith’s first plural wife. Best estimates put their union as taking place sometime between late 1835 and early 1836.cclxiii According to Smith, the sealing power was restored to the Earth on April 3, 1836,cclxiv so it is posible that Smith and Alger were sealed.cclxv Because it was not a civil marriage but only a religious ceremony, it would not have been an illegal union. The revelation Smith claimed to receive ordering plural marriage is said to have been received in 1831.cclxvi Smith apparently spoke to Alger’s family members about the practice, who approached Alger on his behalf.cclxvii After she agreed to the union, there was a ceremony of some sort performed by either Oliver Cowdery or Levi Hancock, the brother-in-law of Alger’s father.cclxviii Reports exist of an altercation taking place between Smith, Alger, Emma Smith, and Oliver Cowdery, which led to the dissolution of the union.cclxix Alger moved out of the Smith home and into the home of Chauncy and Eliza Webb for a short time until she joined the rest of her family elsewhere in Ohio. Much later, the Webb family alleged that Alger was pregnant at the time her relationship with Smith ended, but these reports cannot be corroborated.cclxx Her oldest living child was not Smith’s.cclxxi In September of 1836, the Alger family began their move to Missouri. At a stopover in Indiana, Alger married Solomon Custer after a brief courtship.cclxxii It appears that, whatever her relationship with Smith had been, they considered it over if Alger felt free to marry another man. After Alger’s departure from Kirtland rumors circulated, fueled by Cowdery, who did not approve of polygamy.cclxxiii Cowdery insinuated that Smith was guilty of adultery with Alger, and did indeed refer to it as a “dirty, nasty, filthy” thing.cclxxiv However, while the official copy of the letter from Cowdery’s letter book says “affair,” this appears to be an alteration by Cowdery’s nephew, who maintained the letter book.cclxxv Cowdery’s original word was “scrape,” which shows it was not a romantic affair but rather, a difficult situation.cclxxvi To address the rumors Cowdery was fomenting, Smith spoke to the High Council at Far West, Missouri, during Cowdery’s excommunication trial.cclxxvii The meeting minutes state simply that Smith addressed “the girl business” to the Council’s satisfaction.cclxxviii Therefore, claims that Smith was dishonest about the relationship with Alger do not appear to be accurate, as he explained the situation to the Far West High Council.  

While it is true that Joseph Smith did publicly deny engaging in polygamy while in Nauvoo, those denials were carefully worded to avoid outright dishonesty.cclxxix Moreover, he did attempt on at least one occasion to publicly teach the practice to the Mormons, but was rebuffed.cclxxx The context regarding the denials is important. Under Illinois law at the time, adultery and fornication were only considered illegal if that behavior was conducted openly and was publicly known.cclxxxi Because Smith was not civilly married to any of his wives except Emma Smith, any religious sealings to additional women would legally have been considered adultery if they were publicly known or flaunted. Smith was accused of adultery by two of the editors of The Nauvoo Expositor, William and Wilson Law, and an indictment was issued on May 25, 1844.cclxxxii The following day, he gave an address to the Mormons in which he denied committing adultery and having more than one wife.cclxxxiii This was done specifically to counter the charges of adultery brought against him. If he had admitted to engaging in polygamy, he would have been guilty in the eyes of the law. By denying it, he was not legally guilty. This incident was certainly walking along the edge of dishonesty, and it is understandable that some may be upset to learn this information. Though it doesn’t sit well with some readers, technically, Smith did only have one legal wife. While Smith was sealed to multiple women at that time, a religious sealing did not have legal standing under the law. He was not civilly married to them even though some of the unions were considered marriages by Smith and the women involved, and were consummated as such.cclxxxiv Additionally, The Warsaw Signal newspaper was printing frequent stories in opposition to the Mormons, encouraging mob violence against them with the intent of driving them from the county.cclxxxv There was also a conspiracy against Smith’s life with the intent to lure him out of the city in order to murder him.cclxxxvi These two circumstances gave Smith extra incentive to keep polygamy quiet in order to protect the Mormons from that brewing violence. Evidence exists to suggest that protection of the Mormons against mob violence was also a primary reason for the destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor.cclxxxvii  Moreover, it is inaccurate to say that the Mormons were unaware of their leaders practicing polygamy before 1852. The confirmation of the practice to the rest of the world occurred in 1852, but the practice was taught quietly to many Mormons while in Nauvoo before Smith’s death and more widely to the rest of the Mormon membership while stationed at Winter Quarters during their exodus West.cclxxxviii 

The destruction of the printing press for The Nauvoo Expositor led directly to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. However, the situation is far more nuanced than described in the CES Letter. The editors of The Nauvoo Expositor were mostly former Mormons who had turned against Smith for various reasons.cclxxxix Evidence shows that Smith attempted several times to make amends, but was unsuccessful.ccxc Tensions were growing steadily in Hancock County between the Mormons and non-Mormons in the early 1840s. With the release of The Nauvoo Expositor Prospectus and subsequent single issue, those tensions escalated dramatically.ccxci The text of each was inflammatory and threatened that future editions would be even less restrained.ccxcii In an attempt to prevent mob violence from descending on the Mormons, as well as to prevent the outraged Mormons from retaliating against the editors of The Expositor themselves, the Nauvoo City Council voted almost unanimously to destroy the Expositor printing press, type, and remaining copies of the edition.ccxciii Prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment was seen as only pertaining to federal cases, rather than state cases. Additionally, suppression of printing presses was common in 19th Century America.ccxciv Smith and the City Council believed their city charter gave them the authority to suppress a libelous press as a nuissance.ccxcv The press was therefore destroyed on June 10, 1844.ccxcvi Evidence exists to suggest that the editors of The Expositor intended the City Council to destroy the press for the sole purpose of igniting mob violence against the Mormons.ccxcvii Their desire was successful, and the action escalated the tensions to the point that after a succession of legal hearings against Smith and the City Council, Smith, as Mayor of Nauvoo, called out the Nauvoo Legion militia and placed the city under marshall law.ccxcviii The Warsaw Signal then openly called for the death of all Mormons in Illinois if Smith was not delivered for execution.ccxcix Smith eventually surrendered to the authorities and paid his bail for a charge of inciting a riot, but was then rearrested for treason for calling out the militia.ccc However, according to a letter from Smith to Governor Ford, he had done so on the Governor’s orders.ccci Because treason was a charge without bail, Smith was unable to leave the Carthage jail. As he was held there, a mob stormed the jail and murdered Smith and his brother, Hyrum. While the legality of Smith’s actions can be debated, the CES Letter goes beyond the evidence when making definitive statements about Smith’s intent and motivations in suppressing the Expositor press. Readers can draw their own conclusions after examining the evidence. 

Regarding the affidavits released in the Times and Seasons newspaper on October 1, 1842, there is no indication that Smith asked the signatories to write and sign the documents.cccii In fact, the affidavits did not concern Smith at all and did not even mention his name.ccciii One of the signatories, Eliza R. Snow, who was already sealed to Smith at the time, explained that they wrote the affidavits in response to John C. Bennett, a former-Mormon-turned-critic who was trumpeting a doctrine of his own making called “spiritual wifery.”ccciv According to Snow, they did not refer to Smith’s form of plural marriage at any point.cccv Thus, the CES Letter’s usage of these affidavits as proof against Smith’s honesty is questionable when Smith is not even the subject of them.  

Did Mormons Practice Secret Polygamy? This is What the CES Letter Thinks:

Joseph Smith was already a polygamist when this edition came out, and it publicly teaches that monogamy is the doctrine of the Mormon Church in D&C 101:4, 13:7, and 65:3. He continued secretly marrying women and young girls while those revelations remained in force.  

The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants does not “ban polygamy.” D&C 13:7 is today’s D&C 42:22, and it states that the law of the Mormon Church is monogamy.cccvi In 1831 when Smith claimed to receive this revelation, saying to cleave unto your wife and none else, the commandment was monogamy. The “law” in the Mormon Church is always monogamy unless directly commanded otherwise, and only for as long as commanded.cccvii D&C 65:3 in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants is today’s D&C 49:15–21.cccviii This revelation was also allegedly given in 1831, and was in direct response to the conversion of Shakers who believed that marriage was forbidden by God. This revelation teaches that marriage is ordained by God.  

The 1835 section 101 is not a revelation at all, but a statement on marriage written by Oliver Cowdery at Smith’s request.cccix This statement was written so that the Mormons would have a written record of their beliefs on marriage, which at that time was strictly monogamous. The Mormon Church was based in Ohio in 1835, and had recently announced the Law of Consecration, which was about the Mormons “having all things in common.”cccx Some Ohioans at the time believed this included having wives in common, as other “free love” societies/communities had sprung up out of the Second Great Awakening and the close-knit Mormons were viewed to be one of them.cccxi The article was written in part to refute that idea.  

A second reason it was written was because, under Ohio law at the time, any ordained minister could obtain a license to perform legal marriages, and any religious society could perform marriages without a license so long as the ceremony was conducted “agreeable to the rules and regulations of their respective churches.”cccxii Sidney Rigdon, a Campbellite minister before converting to the Mormon Church, was denied a license to perform marriages by a judge despite meeting the requirements—the only such denial on record during that period—and was later arrested for performing an illegal marriage before he was able to produce his original Campbellite license to void the charge.cccxiii By issuing the statement on marriage, which included formalized rules and regulations, the Mormons were able to side-step the requirement to obtain a license to perform marriages by the state and perform legal marriages under the second statute cited above.   

The language of the statement was ambiguous as to whether or not a man could at some point in the future have more than one wife.cccxiv Because this was not a revelation, but a statement of fact regarding the teachings of the Mormon Church in 1835, it does not it does not “ban” those teachings from changing in the future to allow for polygamy. Whether or not Smith was already a polygamist at the time the statement was released is in dispute, as the marriage date for his union with Fanny Alger is unknown. However, best estimates put it at late 1835 to early 1836.cccxv It is also disingenuous to suggest that Smith continued “secretly marrying women and young girls while those revelations remained in force.” After Alger, his next sealing was in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1841.cccxvi Reports indicate that Smith claimed to receive the revelation regarding sealings and polygamy as early as 1831, though it was not yet put into practice.cccxvii It would appear that these revelations and the statement on marriage were not “in force” at the time, as Smith had knowledge that they would be superseded by the sealing revelation. 

  • References

    cccvi. See “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, Pages 121–122,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed February 19, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cccvii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Polygamy,” Newsroom Topic, accessed February 19, 2024, online at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cccviii. See “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, Page 192,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed February 19, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cccix. See “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, Pages 251–252,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed February 19, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cccx. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Law of Consecration,” Answers to Church History Questions, accessed February 20, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cccxi. See Richard S. Van Wagoner, “Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18, no. 3 (Fall 1985): 68–70, online at dialoguejournal.com. 

    cccxii. M. Scott Bradshaw, “Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio,” Brigham Young University Studies 39, no. 4 (2000): 23, 57–59 online at jstor.org; see also Gregory L. Smith, “Polygamy Book: Joseph Smith’s performance of marriages in Ohio,” FAIR, accessed February 20, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    cccxiii. See M. Scott Bradshaw, “Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio,” Brigham Young University Studies 39, no. 4 (2000): 23–24 online at jstor.org. 

    cccxiv. See Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, Inc., 2013): 164. As cited by Hales, RLDS Elder David H. Bays said the following regarding this statement: “You may have observed the ingenious phraseology of that part of the document which is designed to convey the impression that the assembly, as well as the entire church, was opposed to polygamy, but which, as a matter of fact, leaves the way open for its introduction and practice. The language I refer to is this: ‘We believe that one man shall have one wife; and one woman but one husband.’ Why use the restrictive adverb in the case of the woman, and ingeniously omit it with reference to the man? Why not employ the same form of words in one case as in the other? Why not say of the man, he shall have ‘but one wife except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.’ We repeat the question with emphasis, Why not restrict the man to one wife in the same manner that the woman is restricted to one husband? The reason seems obvious.” As also cited by Hales, Mormon President Joseph F. Smith said, “The declaration…that ‘one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband’ bears the implication that a man might possibly be permitted at some time to have more than one wife, while a woman was to have ‘but one husband.’” 

    cccxv. See Brian C. Hales, “Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed February 20, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org. 

    cccxvi. See Gary James Bergera, “The Earliest Eternal Sealings for Civilly Married Couples Living and Dead,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 49, online at dialoguejournal.com. See also Don Bradley, “Knowing Brother Joseph: How the Historical Record Demonstrates the Prophet’s Religious Sincerity,” 2023 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed February 19, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    cccxvii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Polygamy: Latter-day Saints and the Practice of Plural Marriage,” Newsroom: Additional Resource, accessed February 20, 2024, online at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

The CES Letter on Warren Jeffs

Today, Warren Jeffs is more closely aligned to Joseph Smith’s Mormonism than the modern LDS Church is. D&C 132 is the kind of revelation you’d expect to see from Jeffs to his followers, rather than anything from God. Smith and Jeffs both had dozens of wives, some of whom were very young while others were already married to other men, and some of those wives were biologically related as sisters or mothers/daughters. 

While it is understandable that the author of the CES Letter might see some superficial similarities between Smith and Jeffs, it is important to look more closely at the details.cccxviii Smith never acknowledged that he was lying about being a prophet, while Jeffs did on at least two occasions.cccxix Additionally, unlike Smith, Jeffs forced young women into marriages to men again their will, ordered them to submit to sex, pushed men and boys out of the community, banned the color red in his community, and was even accused of incest.cccxx Smith did none of those things. 

The CES Letter's Prophets Criticisms

The CES Letter's Examination on the Adam-God Theory Taught by Brigham Young

Brigham Young taught what is called the Adam-God theory, which is that Adam is “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” He taught this in General Conference and as part of the Lecture at the Veil in the endowment ceremony in the St. George temple. It was even published in the Deseret News. Since then, other Prophets and Apostles have renounced this theory as heresy and false doctrine. What about the people who followed the Prophet in Young’s day? What about the people who went through the temple when that was in place? 

Brigham Young did indeed periodically teach what has come to be known as the “Adam-God Theory” between 1852 and 1877, the end of his life.cccxxi This theory says that Adam was also God the Father, living a second mortal probation after being the Savior of another world and being exalted. However, there is confusion over what exactly Young was trying to communicate, and the Mormon Church does not have the original shorthand transcripts for the sermons in question.cccxxii Numerous theories exist that attempt to explain his thinking on the subject.cccxxiii Regardless of his intended meaning, over the span of approximately 25 years the theory was taught in Church magazines, at General Conference, in sermons, hymnals, private meetings, and even in the St. George temple.cccxxiv However, the teachings were never canonized as official doctrine of the Mormon Church and have been denounced by later leaders as incorrect.cccxxv 

Young appears to have developed this theory after engaging in speculation with his close friend, Heber C. Kimball, and building on ideas expressed by Joseph Smith before his death (D&C 78:16, D&C 137:1–5).cccxxvi At times, Young alluded to the concept coming as revelation.cccxxvii However, it should be noted that Young believed that all knowledge and ideas were revelation from God, even when learned from other humans.cccxxviii At other times, he also said the belief was merely his opinion.cccxxix Young also stated repeatedly that Mormons should not believe his words were true unless they prayed over them and received a spiritual confirmation that they were true.cccxxx 

Mormons do not believe that prophets and apostles are infallible.cccxxxi They are mortal human beings who can and do occasionally make mistakes. This theory appears to be one of those errors. There are keys to trusting imperfect people, such as giving them the benefit of the doubt and focusing on the broader principles rather than the finer details.cccxxxii Mormons believe that if someone follows the guidance of their prophet, even if that prophet is in error, they will still be blessed.cccxxxiii Therefore, those who followed the counsel of Brigham Young will be blessed, even if he was in error about the Adam-God Theory. 

Blood Atonement: The CES Letter's view

Brigham Young taught a doctrine called Blood Atonement, where a person’s blood had to be shed to atone for their own sins that were beyond the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This doctrine was later declared false by other Prophets and Apostles. How can we trust what Prophets say if their words will just be called false doctrine in a few years? 

Blood Atonement is the belief that Jesus Christ did not atone for certain sins such as murder, so the sinner must voluntarily shed their own blood as an act of restitution for their crimes.cccxxxiv One of the steps of Mormon repentance is making restitution to those you’ve wronged.cccxxxv The idea behind Blood Atonement is that you can’t restore someone’s life to them after you take it from them, so you would allow your own blood to be shed by the state/government instead.  

This idea is often linked with capital punishment, and was taught by Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders as only being possible or required in a complete theocracy.cccxxxvi Because Mormons did not live in a complete theocracy, it was a rhetorical device meant to highlight the severity of sins such as murder, and to encourage non-Mormons to avoid coming to Utah.cccxxxvii This teaching was never a canonized doctrine of the Mormon Church. 

The fiery rhetoric was later repudiated by Mormon leaders.cccxxxviii One reason for this is that Mormons believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is available to anyone, regardless of the sins they committed. Another reason is that it was wildly exaggerated and misconstrued by critics of the Mormon Church.cccxxxix  

It is understandable that some readers may be confused over how to reconcile the teachings of some church leaders later being disavowed by later church leaders. One important thing to remember is that not every statement made by a church leader is official doctrine. Unless it is taught frequently and recently by all church leaders and conforms to canonized scripture, it is not considered official doctrine.cccxl While church leaders are imperfect and fallible human beings, we can still trust in what they say even if they may be mistaken at times.cccxli 

  • References

    cccxxxiv. See Mormonr, “Blood Atonement and Capital Punishment,” Hard Questions, accessed February 14, 2024, online at mormonr.org. 

    cccxxxv. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Repentance,” Gospel Topics and Questions, accessed February 14, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cccxxxvi. See Lowell M. Snow, “Blood Atonement,” in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992): 131, online at eom.byu.edu. See also Martin R. Gardner, “Mormonism and Capital Punishment: A Doctoral Perspective, Past and Present,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12, no. 1 (Spring 1979): 9–26, online at dialoguejournal.com. 

    cccxxxvii. See Mormonr, “Blood Atonement and Capital Punishment,” Hard Questions, accessed February 14, 2024, online at mormonr.org. 

    cccxxxviii. See Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, et. al, “Manifesto: Salt Lake City, Dec. 12, 1889,” Salt Lake Herald-Republican, December 25, 1889, 14, online at newspapers.lib.utah.edu; Deseret News Staff Writer, Mormon church statement on blood atonement,” The Deseret News, June 18, 2010, online at deseret.com. 

    cccxxxix. For one example, see Kate Field, Mormon Blood Atonement,” The North American Review 143, no. 358 (September 1886): 262–267, online at jstor.org. 

    cccxl. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine,” Newsroom (May 4, 2007), online at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org; Michael R. Ash, “What is ‘Official’ LDS Doctrine?” FAIR, 2003, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” General Conference address, April 2012, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Neil L. Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith,” General Conference address, October 2012, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Dallin H. Oaks, “Trust in the Lord,” General Conference address, October 2019, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cccxli. See Neal Rappleye, “Trusting Imperfect Prophets,” FAIR blog, December 20, 2012, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

The CES Letter's perspective on the historical practice of polygamy

Brigham Young and other Prophets taught that polygamy was required for exaltation, something that even the Doctrine and Covenants teaches. But in a Larry King Live interview in 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley condemned polygamy and said it wasn’t doctrinal. Why do we still have D&C 132 canonized in the scriptures if it’s not doctrinal? Why does polygamy still happen in the temples? Mormon Apostles Oaks, Perry, and Nelson are modern-day polygamists because they’re each sealed to more than one spouse.  

The Doctrine and Covenants, Brigham Young, and other leaders of the Mormon Church did not teach that polygamy was required for exaltation. At its height, the polygamous Mormon population was only approximately 25–30%.cccxlii A requirement of polygamy would have excluded more than 70% of Mormons from exaltation. Though Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is largely about polygamy, the main focus of the revelation is about the temple sealing covenant. The “new and everlasting covenant” the CES Letter and D&C 132 describe is not talking about polygamy, but “the fulness of the gospel” (D&C 66:2). It is referring to the Mormon belief that certain ordinances, including the temple endowment and the marriage sealing, are required for exaltation.cccxliii (Mormons believe that salvation is given to everyone because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, but that exaltation, certain blessings and the gift of eternal progression, requires obedience to God’s commandments, including undertaking these ordinances.)cccxliv Married couples and families are exalted together. 

The quote that the CES Letter gives from Brigham Young to support its claim is incorrect to Young’s actual phrasing as well as his intended meaning. The quote was taken from The Journal of Discourses, a multi-volume collection of sermons given by Mormon leaders in the late 1800s.cccxlv Under editing standards of the time, the reporters taking down the original shorthand transcripts of the sermons later added, deleted, or revised significant portions of those sermons while preparing them for publication.cccxlvi Though the Mormon Church has few of the original sermon transcripts remaining, this talk is one it does have. It and the other available sermons have been transcribed and are available for free access at their Church History Catalog.cccxlvii The quote in question is somewhat different, and the sermon was referring specifically to those who were commanded by God to enter into polygamous marriages and refused to do so. It was not referring to the entire world or even the entire Mormon population.cccxlviii When Mormon leaders gave similar speeches during the time period in which polygamy was practiced, it was the acceptance of the practice as a commandment that was required, not necessarily Mormons engaging in the practice. 

In his Larry King Live interview from 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley was asked repeatedly why the Mormon Church was not involving itself in Utah’s prosecutions of polygamy. He explained many times that it was a state issue, not a religious one, as Mormons had not practiced polygamy for a century at that point. After approximately 4-5 minutes of this, Hinckley was asked if he condemned polygamy, and he responded in the affirmative. When he said it was not doctrinal, he was referring to the fact that it is not currently a practice the Mormon Church allows.cccxlix Mormons believe in monogamy unless explicitly commanded otherwise. When not commanded, polygamy is sinful (Jacob 2:24–30). 

From one point of view, however, a person could argue that polygamy is still practiced in Mormon temples. Because of the Mormon belief that the temple marriage sealing is required for exaltation, everyone who is able to be sealed to their spouse in marriage is encouraged (though not required) to do so (D&C 131:1–4). Under Mormon doctrine, women who marry and are sealed to widowed men that were already sealed to their first wives will still be sealed to their husbands in the next life. This allows the woman the opportunity to receive the required ordinances for exaltation that would otherwise be unavailable to her, and it prevents families from being broken up during the next life.cccl If the husband has children with each of his wives, for example, it does not make sense that a loving God would force the husband to choose between his two sets of children. Each of the Mormon Apostles listed, Dallin H. Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson, were widowed and later remarried to women who had never been married and were therefore not sealed to anyone.cccli This allowed them the chance to receive the ordinances necessary for exaltation.ccclii It is unclear why the author of the CES Letter finds this upsetting. 

What the CES Letter says about the Blacks Ban

For nearly 130 years, black people were banned from holding the priesthood and from going to the temple. Every Prophet from Brigham Young down to Harold B. Lee kept this ban in place. In 2013, the “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” of the Mormon Church disavowed the theories of other “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” that came before them. Racist doctrine is now “disavowed theories.” At the same time, they also say that black skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or curse, which contracts the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to black men, but suddenly, they were banned? God decided He didn’t like black people until He changed his mind again in 1978? It’s convenient that this revelation came right when the IRS was threatening to revoke BYU’s tax-free status, universities were boycotting BYU athletics, and it was hard to tell who was black or not in places like Brazil. Why wasn’t the true church of God leading the Civil Rights charge, instead of being the last major church on the planet to accept it? How can we trust Prophets if they were so wrong about something for so long? 

It is true that the Mormon Church restricted black people of African lineage from receiving the Priesthood or receiving the temple ordinances for a period of 126 years. The history behind this restriction is complicated and uncertain.cccliii Early Church leaders, including Brigham Young, repeated the belief that this restriction was instituted by God and that only He could remove it.cccliv However, Young believed that all ideas and knowledge came from God, making it difficult for Mormons to determine whether he did receive a revelation on this subject or whether he only thought he did.ccclv This restriction was lifted in 1978 after a revelation given to the Apostles of the Mormon Church.ccclvi  

In the absence of confirmed revelation on this topic, many Mormons, including some leaders, advanced theories to explain why the restriction was in place. Those theories were disavowed as racist by the Mormon Church in an historical essay titled “Race and the Priesthood, which was published in 2013.ccclvii As for black skin being a sign of cursing in the Book of Mormon, it is likely not regarding a person’s skin color, though that is the traditional reading of the verse. In the ancient Near East, a black/dark countenance was symbolic of cursing, divine disfavor, or spiritual impurity. In contrast, a white/bright countenance was a sign of purity or divine favor.ccclviii This symbolic purity is why Isaiah speaks of washing sins from scarlet to white as snow (Isa. 1:18). Additionally, the “curse” in the Book of Mormon was described as the Lamanites being temporarily cut off from the presence of the Lord (2 Ne. 5:20–24). This sits well with ancient generational curses being a sign of a person’s state of disinheritance.ccclix  

The line from the CES Letter about God changing his mind about black people is an unattributed paraphrase from The Book of Mormon, the Broadway musical which began to air in 2011.ccclx Additionally, the claim that the IRS threatened to revoke BYU’s tax-free status is false.ccclxi While athletics boycotts and protests against BYU occurred in the 1960s during the height of the Civil Rights movement, by 1978, that social pressure was at the lowest point it had been in years.ccclxii It is likely, however, that the new temple in São Paulo, Brazil, played a role in the timing of the revelation to lift the restriction.ccclxiii Mormons believe that revelation does not typically happen in a vacuum, but often comes in response to sincere questions.ccclxiv The desire to more easily extend temple ordinances to Brazilians who may have had difficulty under the restriction surely helped inspire much prayer from Mormon Church leaders.ccclxv 

Mormon Church leaders believed that, regardless of the ultimate reason behind the restriction, it could not be changed until they received a revelation from God directing it.ccclxvi While this may be difficult for some readers and Mormons to understand, they did not feel the time was right to remove the restriction until 1978. There is evidence supporting the idea that Mormon Church leaders had prayed to remove the restriction and felt they received a negative answer.ccclxvii It is understandable that some people would feel hurt and confused by this information, as well as by the Mormon Church’s recent silence on potential explanations for the restriction. However, to imply that the Mormon Church was somehow against civil rights for all citizens, or that it was “the last major church on the planet” to accept civil rights is not accurate. The Mormon Church did not consider the priesthood restriction a civil rights issue, but a doctrinal one. LDS Apostle Hugh B. Brown read a statement in favor of civil rights for all people in October 1963 at the Mormon Church’s General Conference.ccclxviii This statement came nine months before the passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act in July 1964.ccclxix Furthermore, many American Protestant churches even now are still segregated by race.ccclxx This remains a difficult issue for many Mormons and non-Mormons to navigate and it is understandable that feelings on this topic are strong. Regardless, making false accusations harms rather than helps the situation. 

The CES Letter's Analysis of the Mark Hofmann Forgeries

Mark Hofmann was a con-man and murderer, and the Mormon Church paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and antiquities to purchase and suppress embarrassing documents that turned out to be forgeries. Why didn’t the leaders of the Church discern that Hofmann was a liar if they are prophets and apostles? Speeches by Apostle Dallin H. Oaks and Church President Gordon B. Hinckley gave apologetic responses to explain away these documents that weren’t even real. Hinckley engaged in significant dishonesty regarding his relationship with Hofmann. Hofmann met with Oaks right after the bombings, and he didn’t realize he was in a meeting with a murderer. Why didn’t they know? The Mormon Church was forced to announce it had documents it previously claimed it didn’t have. The Tanners, some of the biggest critics of the Church, recognized the fraud before the Mormon leaders did. What does this say about the Church? 

In the early 1980s, Mark Hofmann was an antiquities dealer specializing in rare books and manuscripts. He was also an excellent forger who created and sold forged signatures and documents from such notable figures as Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, George Washington, Mark Twain, John Adams, Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, Emily Dickinson, Paul Revere, John Hancock, William Bonney, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Myles Standish, Nathan Hale, Francis Scott Key, John Milton, John Brown, and Button Gwinnett.ccclxxi These forgeries were confirmed as genuine by the Mormon Church History Department, but also American history antiquarians, the FBI, the Library of Congress, the US Treasury, and Charles Hamilton, a handwriting expert specializing in signature authentication who is considered “the nation’s preeminent detector of forged documents.”ccclxxii On October 15–16, 1985, in a series of bombings, he murdered two people and injured another in addition to himself in an attempt to cover up his crimes. This led to an investigation which uncovered the forgeries. None of his forgeries were ever detected as such until the murder investigation was underway and his forgery equipment was discovered in his home.ccclxxiii 

In his ongoing attempts to embarrass the Mormon Church, he would call the press as an anonymous source and claim they had certain documents in their possession. If they had them but had not yet released them publicly, they were forced to do so. If they did not have them and denied owning them, the press accused them of lying and suppressing information.ccclxxiv Hofmann also told his friends that Gordon B. Hinckley, then acting-president of the Mormon Church, had hired him to locate rare Church-related documents and that the two worked closely together. When Hinckley told police that he barely knew Hofmann, had only met him briefly, and did not remember most of their conversations, they believed Hinckley was covering up the truth and his friends backed up his story based on the information Hofmann was feeding them. The “significant dishonesty” regarding their relationship came from Hofmann, not Hinckley.ccclxxv 

Because of the assurances the documents were genuine as well as the overwhelmingly negative press the Mormon Church was receiving during this time period due to Hofmann’s behavior, Mormon leaders were hesitant to publicly admit their doubts over the items’ legitimacy.ccclxxvi However, the “apologetic responses” given by Apostles Oaks and Hinckley were each filled with expressions of doubt over their authenticity.ccclxxvii To a discerning reader, it is clear that they did not agree with the contents of the documents. While noted Mormon critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner did express their doubt over the authenticity of the Salamander Letter, they did not need to carefully navigate critical press or slanderous accusations from Hofmann.ccclxxviii Their response to the letter was also far less widely broadcast than that of the Mormon Church. They were free to express their opinions without being publicly accused of lying themselves. The Mormon Church was not.  

When asked why the Church leaders did not discern that Hofmann was a liar and a murderer, Oaks explained that “[i]n order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year. Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love. In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see. It is better for a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious.”ccclxxix 

The CES Letter's Kinderhook Plates & Translator Claims Criticisms

The CES Letter's Claims About the Kinderhook Plates

Joseph Smith didn’t realize the Kinderhook Plates were a fraud, and he even claimed to have translated them. The Mormon Church admits the plates were a hoax. What does that tell us about Smith’s gift of translation? 

Joseph Smith did not personally claim to have translated the Kinderhook Plates in any extant available records. His scribe, William Clayton, recorded in his personal diary that Smith “translated a portion” of them.ccclxxx This diary entry was later put into Smith’s own words, according to the biographical standards of the day, and repeated in the History of the Church as Smith saying he translated a portion of them.ccclxxxi  

When the Kinderhook Plates were brought to Nauvoo to be examined by Smith, he and a gathering of men were intrigued by their discovery. According to various sources, he sent someone to retrieve his Hebrew Bible and Lexicon, as well as some of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, including the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) so that he could compare the symbols to them. One source even described Smith comparing the symbols on the plates to the papyrus scrolls, though that is unlikely to be accurate.ccclxxxii It is unknown precisely what sources they consulted aside from one, the GAEL. The final symbol on page 4 of the GAEL is a small symbol shaped like a dish. The name given for this symbol is “Ho-e-oop-hah,” and its definition reads, “honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh, possession by birth, one who reigns upon his throne universally–possessor of heaven and earth and of the blessings of heaven.”ccclxxxiii   

A similar symbol is found at the top of the first Kinderhook Plate, and according to Clayton’s diary entry, Smith stated that the owner of the plates “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.” Smith clearly took that explanation from the GAEL, perhaps in conjunction with the text of the Book of Abraham, which explains that Pharaoh is a descendant of Ham (Abr. 1:21). This is the only symbol that he attempted to explain. There is no further evidence he attempted to translate the Kinderhook Plates through traditional means or through revelation, and he returned them shortly afterward.ccclxxxiv  

Regarding Smith’s gift of translation, that was a claimed gift of revelation. Smith did not appear to use revelation in his attempt at translating the Kinderhook Plates. Beyond this initial burst of curiosity, there is no evidence Smith spent much time with the plates. If he was faking his revelatory gift during the translation of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, it is interesting that he did not produce a fake translation of the entirety of the plates. Rather, the fact that he attempted to translate them at all shows that he likely did not consider the golden plates or Egyptian papyri to be hoaxes. His previous experiences showed him that it was possible to translate ancient records.  

  • References

    ccclxxx. See William Clayton, 1 May 1843, Monday, Nauvoo Diary 2,” in William Clayton’s Nauvoo Diaries and Personal Writings, November 24, 1840–February 27, 1846 (2015): 86, comp. Robert C. Fillerup, accessed on February 8, 2024, online at archive.org. 

    ccclxxxi. See A Latter-day Saint Historian, “Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response to Mormonism–Shadow or Reality,” reproduced by FAIR (Salt Lake City, UT: 1977), accessed February 8, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    ccclxxxii. In Smith’s journal, scribe Willard Richards stated that someone was sent for Smith’s Hebrew Bible and Lexicon. See Don Bradley, Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Chapter 17: ‘President Joseph Has Translated a Portion’: Joseph Smith and the Mistranslation of the Kinderhook Plates,” in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2020): 489. One non-Mormon, purported to be Sylvester Emmons, wrote an anonymous letter to the New York Herald saying that Smith compared the Kinderhook Plates to his Egyptian alphabet documents and found some similarities. See A Gentile, “Nauvoo, Ill., May 7, 1843,” The New York Herald, May 30, 1843, online at loc.gov. See also “Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook Plates,” FAIR, accessed February 8, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. Another non-Latter-day Saint, Charlotte Haven, stated the characters resembled those on the gold plates. See Book of Mormon Central, ﷟HYPERLINK “https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-do-the-kinderhook-plates-reveal-about-joseph-smiths-gift-of-translation”What Do the Kinderhook Plates Reveal About Joseph Smith’s Gift of Translation?” KnoWhy 454, July 31, 2018, online at knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org. Smith’s close friend, Parley P. Pratt, wrote a letter to John Van Cott on May 7, 1843, in which he said the plates were compared to the Egyptian papyrus rolls. See Brian M. Hauglid, “‘Come & Help Build the Temple & City’: Parley P. and Orson Pratt’s May 1843 Letter to John Van Cott,” Mormon Historical Studies 12, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 155, online at academia.edu  

    ccclxxxiii. See Joseph Smith Papers, “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, circa July–circa November 1835,” in Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts, ed. Robin Scott Jensen, Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2018): 111–190online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    ccclxxxiv. See Don Bradley, Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Chapter 17: ‘President Joseph Has Translated a Portion’: Joseph Smith and the Mistranslation of the Kinderhook Plates,” in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2020): 452–523.  

Commentary on the Book of Abraham From the CES Letter

Joseph Smith got everything wrong about the papyri, facsimiles, names, gods, scene context, that they were first century funerary texts, who was male and who was female, etc. Not one non-Mormon Egyptologists supports Smith’s claims or the Book of Abraham. Even some Mormon Egyptologists think there are serious problems with the Book of Abraham. Smith failed the testable claim that he could translate and the Book of Abraham is proof of that. If he failed that test, how can we believe he translated the Book of Mormon? And it was translated with a rock in a hat that he used to use for treasure-digging? Why would God go through the trouble of giving him the plates and the interpreters if they were useless? Smith claimed to have translated 3 ancient records, and two of the three were proven to be frauds. So, how can we believe that the Book of Mormon isn’t a fraud too, when we don’t have the original anymore? 

While some of his claims cannot be proven at this time, Joseph Smith did not get everything wrong about the Book of Abraham or its details. The concepts Smith describes in the facsimile explanations are concepts that many Egyptologists–Mormon and non-Mormon alike–would recognize.ccclxxxv Additionally, names and words provided in the Book of Abraham and the facsimile explanations have been attested to in Egypt and elsewhere.  

For the CES Letter to claim that Smith “failed the test” of translation, it first needs to address the claims Smith made that have merit. How does the Book of Abraham share details with numerous ancient, extra-biblical documents about the life of Abraham, many of which were not available in Smith’s lifetime?ccclxxxvi How does the word “Kolob” have the same Semitic root structure as words referring to prominent stars?ccclxxxvii How does the Book of Abraham contain ancient Hebraic writing styles and Egyptian wordplay?ccclxxxviii How does the Book of Abraham contain a genuine ancient Egyptian word that was used during the time in which Abraham lived?ccclxxxix How does Facsimile 3 contain a name that was only found in Egypt during the time periods in which Abraham lived and the papyri were created?cccxc How did Smith know that in the Greco-Roman period, genders were sometimes confused in Egyptian artwork?cccxci How did he know that an upside-down cow was associated with the sun?cccxcii How did he know that Abraham could be linked with Osiris?cccxciii How did he know that days could be measured in cubits?cccxciv How did he name a place that is now known to have existed during the period he claimed, with a name linguistically related to the one he provided?cccxcv The CES Letter is silent on these matters.  

Joseph Smith did not claim to have translated the Kinderhook Plates, as outlined above. He provided a possible–but ultimately incorrect–explanation for one character on one plate while attempting to translate through traditional means. His claimed gift of translation was solely through revelation. Additionally, the Book of Abraham, though disputed by some scholars, has not been “proven to be a fraud.” While Smith’s ability to translate ancient records cannot be proven when the original documents are no longer extant, there is evidence that supports some of his claims. Further research is needed before we can make any definitive claims of our own. 

The CES Letter's Testimony & Spiritual Witness Criticisms

The CES Letter’s Take on Differing Religious Beliefs

Every major religion believes that God or God’s Spirit testifies that their religion, prophet/pope/leaders, book(s), and teachings are true. But they can’t all be true. 

It is not accurate to claim that every major religion believes that they can learn truth through a witness from the Spirit. Many Evangelicals, for example, believe that revelation is not a valid way to determine the truth. Other Protestant Christians will point to the BIble as the ultimate source of truth, rather than the Holy Ghost. Catholics, meanwhile, will point to their authority through Papal succession.cccxcvi  

Prayer and spiritual revelation in Mormonism: a perspective from The CES Letter.

It’s arrogant to dismiss someone else’s spiritual experiences, but not every religion can be correct. If the only method for determining truth is through prayer and feelings, how can people really know? Why doesn’t God have a better way to speak to His children? How is that efficient when the Mormon Church is so small? Praying about the Book of Mormon doesn’t make it true, because Mormon splinter sects all believe in the Book of Mormon too, but they can’t all be correct. And how can you pray about the First Vision when there are multiple different accounts?   

The doctrine of the LDS Church is not to dismiss the spiritual experiences of others. Though some individual members may do so, the official position of the Church, from the days of Joseph Smith until today, is that every religion has some degree of truth. The goal of the Mormon Church is to add to the truth a non-Mormon may already have (2 Ne. 26:13).cccxcvii  

It can be difficult to learn how to decipher and rely on the Spirit. It is understandable that some people may be confused by how it works and question whether it is reliable or not. Mormons believe that it is something that takes practice and dedication to learn.cccxcviii There may be times when they misunderstand what the Spirit is telling them, or when they think they are feeling the Spirit when they are not.  

It is true that, relative to the world’s population, the Mormon Church is not large.cccxcix For Mormons, however, that falls in line with their theology. The Bible teaches that “strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it (Matt. 7:14). Similar sentiments are expressed in other LDS scriptures (2 Ne. 9:41; 2. Ne. 31:9; 2 Ne. 33:9; Jacob 6:11; 3 Ne. 14:14; 3 Ne. 27:33; D&C 132:22). While Mormons hope that more people eventually convert to their church, they recognize an individual’s right to choose for themselves how and who to worship (Articles of Faith 1:11). Another Mormon belief is that those who have died on Earth without hearing the gospel will have the chance to join Christ’s church in the next life. That is why they do baptisms for the dead.cd 

It is unclear why belief in the Book of Mormon by Mormon splinter groups would render it untrue in the mind of the CES Letter’s author. For Mormons, that would be additional support for the book’s validity as scripture, rather than a deterrent to their own beliefs. Regarding the First Vision, Smith did record several accounts of his initial vision that differ somewhat in the details. That may be upsetting to Mormons who were not aware of the different accounts. However, different emphasis and details are expected in eyewitness accounts given over time.cdi The narrative of the accounts is cohesive and largely consistent.cdii 

How Reliable Are Spiritual Feelings? This Is What the CES Letter Thinks:

How are feelings a reliable method for learning the truth? If they are, why are there so many churches out there? If every member of every religion believes their religion is true because they all feel like it is, how can anyone be sure?  

Mormons believe that the Spirit speaks to people not just through feelings, but also through knowledge and understanding (Heb. 10:15–16, D&C 8:2–3). The two are entwined into a wholly unique experience that is individual to everyone.cdiii As outlined earlier, Mormons also believe that learning how to recognize and understand the Spirit takes practice. One of the ways we can put that practice into effect is to experiment with the Spirit to see if that is what we are truly feeling (Alma 32:26-43).cdiv  

The scriptures teach us that we can be sure of the guidance the Spirit gives us because it will enlighten our minds and fill our souls with joy (D&C 11:13–14), and that God’s light within us will continue to build upon itself (D&C 50:23–24). We can learn to recognize the Spirit for what it is through prayer, acting on the promptings we do recognize, and searching the scriptures and the words of the prophets.cdv 

The CES Letter’s Examination of the Book of Mormon Copyright Revelation

Joseph Smith received a revelation through the rock in the hat to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Why would God command him to sell the copyright to His word if that’s what the Book of Mormon really was? Why was it unsuccessful if it was a revelation? Joseph Smith later said that some revelations came from God and some came from the devil, so how are we supposed to know the difference? Why would God allow Satan to interfere with His communication to us? Why wouldn’t He come up with a better method than that?  

There is a difference between intellectual property rights (the rights controlling the content of a book/play/script/pamphlet/etc.) and the printing rights (the sole right to publish that material in a given country). It wasn’t until 1886 that international copyright laws existed, so unauthorized printings were rampant. This prevented the owner of the work from being able to make money off the published copies unless they traveled to that country to secure the official copyright to that work.cdvi It was this copyright to secure monetization from the publishing of the Book of Mormon that this revelation referred to.cdvii 

The account by David Whitmer claiming it was a failed prophecy was given in 1887, 57 years after the events in question.cdviii Due to the lengthy passage of time, details of this account may be incorrect. For example, Whitmer stated that the travelers went to Toronto to secure the copyright, but according to the revelation in question, they actually went to Kingston, 163 miles from Toronto.cdix  

The revelation stated that the company would be successful only if the people they approached didn’t harden their hearts against it.cdx This is known as a conditional prophecy, in which the conditions must be met before the prophecy will come true.cdxi In this case, the conditions were not met. Additionally, Hiram Page, Whitmer’s brother-in-law and one of those in the company who went to Canada, considered the revelation to be fulfilled. In a letter to William McLellin, he explained that for the first time, he understood that some revelations given were not necessarily for the recipient’s direct benefit.cdxii 

Due to the conflicting accounts of the revelation given by Whitmer and Page, and at least one glaring error in Whitmer’s account, it is unclear if his recollection of the events transpiring after the expedition returned are correct. We do not know whether Smith stated that some revelations come from God and some do not. However, we do know that it is possible to receive revelations that are not from God. Hiram Page himself received some through his own seer stone that were false revelations.cdxiii There are numerous other examples, such as Eve being deceived by the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1–13)  or Moses being visited by the devil pretending to be God (Moses 1:12–16). Mormon scriptures even teach how to tell an angel of God from a false spirit (D&C 129:4–8). While this may be concerning to some readers, the way to determine whether a revelation came from God or not is to pray for clarification. It is understandable that some may not be satisfied with that recommendation, but it is the method outlined in the scriptures for receiving answers to our questions (James 1:5–6).  

Fact vs. Spirit: The CES Letter’s Analysis of Testimony Discrepancies

The author of the CES Letter states that he used to believe the Mormon Church had facts and evidence on its side, so that a testimony was based on that as much as on the Spirit. He now believes that there is a discrepancy between what he was taught about his church and what the historical record really was. Isn’t it like believing in Santa Claus until you discover the truth? 

A true testimony is based on more than just spiritual feelings and experiences. Knowledge is an important component of faith, and the Spirit can influence our minds as well as our hearts.cdxiv Seeking both spiritual and secular learning is the way we increase wisdom and grow as individuals.cdxv   

It is true that for a period of time in the 20th century, the Mormon Church minimized aspects of its history that the leaders found embarrassing or inexplicable. The truth was not hidden, and leaders did not intend to deceive anyone, but there were Mormons who did not know the full history of their church. However, since the late 1980s, the Mormon Church has been working to alter this. Over the past several decades, thousands of documents and historical essays have been put online for anyone to access for free.cdxvi   

Even while de-emphasizing certain aspects of its history, the information was always available with additional study. It was being published in Mormon Church publications and by its scholars in books and academic journals. While some Mormons may not have been aware of certain historical details, the way the author of the CES Letter was not, other Mormons did know that information all along. This is unlike believing in Santa Claus because Mormons were not being deliberately deceived and they could have discovered additional information at any time if they had looked up and read the published material.  

How the CES Letter Evaluates Paul H. Dunn’s Ministry

Paul Dunn was a high-ranking member of the Mormon Church who was also a popular speaker. He used to lie in his talks and tell stories that never happened. What does it mean that some Mormons felt the Spirit during those stories? Doesn’t that mean that the Spirit is unreliable? 

The CES Letter claims that Dunn was the first General Authority of the Mormon Church to be given emeritus status and removed from public service, and that it was due to his exaggerated stories. However, this is not accurate. The emeritus status was created during the October 1978 General Conference of the Mormon Church, and seven men were given that status on that day.cdxvii This was well before Dunn was given the status in 1989, supposedly for health reasons. It is true, however, that this announcement came shortly after an internal investigation into his behavior.cdxviii It is therefore unclear if the investigation led to his stepping back from service. Dunn did later give an unprompted apology to Church members for his actions.cdxix 

The Spirit testifies of truth where it is found (Mor. 10:5). This does not mean that every word spoken by Dunn was true if some Mormons felt the Spirit during his speeches. It means that the principles he was attempting to teach were true.cdxx The Spirit is not a polygraph machine that instantly tells you when someone is lying or not. Though you can occasionally receive warnings through the Spirit that someone is being deceptive, that is not its primary purpose.cdxxi 

Apostles’ Counsel on Spiritual Witnesses: The CES Letter’s Critical Review

Mormon Apostles have taught that testimonies can be grown by sharing them, so they’re basically saying to repeat the same things over and over until you convince yourself of their truth. How is that honest? Are Apostles telling us to lie so many times that we start to believe it? What about those who are listening to us tell these lies?  

This is an inaccurate reframing of what the Mormon Apostles actually said in the speeches cited in the CES Letter. None of them suggested lying or testifying of things you don’t truly believe are true. They clarified that “you cannot force spiritual things,” that if you already have a testimony, you also “have a duty to share it,” and that every believer “needs a spiritual confirmation,” because “spiritual questions deserve spiritual answers from God.”cdxxii Their sermons suggested that sharing the testimony you already have will help it to grow into something deeper, as the more you share it, the stronger your faith will grow. They advised taking an active role in obtaining and growing your testimony, rather than a passive one. They did not encourage deception or sharing a testimony you do not already have.

  • References

    cdxxii. See Boyd K. Packer, “The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge,” New Era (January 2007), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Dallin H. Oaks, “Testimony,” General Conference address, April 2008, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; and Neil L. Andersen, “Joseph Smith,” General Conference address, October 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

The CES Letter’s Insight on Assessing the Reliability of the Spirit

Many Mormons claim to have been led by the Spirit into making disastrous decisions, so how can they be sure that what they’re feeling is accurate? How can they rely on this method to discern the truth of Mormonism? How are faith and feelings reliable? Is there anything you can’t be convinced of if that’s your only metric?  

There are many reasons someone may feel prompted to make a decision they later come to regret. It could be due to personal sin, it’s a conditional revelation based on multiple parties pulling their weight, or we may be mistaking our personal feelings for revelation. Sometimes we may even need to temporarily choose the wrong path before the right path can present itself, or so that we can grow through adversity.cdxxiii  

Being able to discern the promptings of the Spirit takes practice, as stated. We practice by following the promptings we receive, and by asking God if what we’re feeling is truly from Him.cdxxiv The Spirit feels differently for each of us, and often takes different forms, so it is necessary to figure out how the Spirit speaks to you.cdxxv  

Mormons believe that the Lord has declared that there can be no greater witness than that of the Spirit, so they do believe it is a reliable method of discerning truth (D&C 6:23). They also believe that the Spirit will not confirm criticisms against the Lord’s prophets, apostles, commandments, and doctrines.cdxxvi This means that yes, there are things you could not be convinced of, because the Spirit will not confirm them.

Perspective From the CES Letter on Distinguishing True Spiritual Confirmation

The author of the CES Letter claims that he felt the Spirit while watching movies and listening to the stories of apostates. How can we tell what is real spiritual confirmation and what is not, and how to trust something so unreliable? 

Because the Spirit testifies of all truth, it can confirm true principles taught or portrayed in fiction as well as reality. The Savior taught using fictional parables, after all. However, simply feeling emotional is not feeling the Spirit. The Spirit also has an intellectual component, in addition to the emotional one.cdxxvii 

As stated above, Mormons believe that the Spirit will not confirm the truth of criticisms against the Lord’s church or its leaders.cdxxviii While the author of the CES Letter believes that he felt the Spirit while listening to the stories of apostates, Mormons would likely not believe that claim. It is certainly likely that the author may have had strong emotions while listening to those testimonies, but the Spirit is more than simply strong emotion.cdxxix  

While “feeling the Spirit” can be a nebulous and confusing topic, Mormons do believe it is a reliable method of discerning the truth. The promise given at the end of the Book of Mormon relies on that method to promote its truth claims (Mor. 10:4–5).

The CES Letter's Priesthood Restoration Criticisms

Priesthood Restoration Knowledge Before 1832: The CES Letter’s Inquiry Into Potential Fabrication

Prior to 1832, no one in the church or Joseph Smith’s family had heard of the restoration of the priesthood from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. In 1832, the “reception” of the priesthood is mentioned, but not the “restoration,” and no ancient figures were mentioned. The story of John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John became more elaborate over time and historian Richard Bushman says that the “late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.” If they didn’t make it all up later, why did it take them years to tell anyone? 

The CES Letter assumes that if an event wasn’t written down, it also wasn’t known or discussed. This is a faulty assumption. While it is unknown what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery told their friends and families in private coversations, there are several references in the historial record that indicate they were discussing elements of the restoration of the Priesthood prior to 1832—and certainly before 1834, as the earliest version of the CES Letter posited.cdxxx  

For example, an 1831 article in The Reflector, a Palmyra newspaper, mentions Cowdery serving a mission to Painesville, Ohio: “Oliver Cowdery…and three others…then proclaimed that there had been no religion in the world for 1500 years,—that no one had been authorized to preach &c. for that period—that Jo Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose…Smith (they affirmed), had seen God frequently and personally—Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels…Cowdery authorized three persons to preach….”cdxxxi Additionally, The Painesville Telegraph ran articles in November and December of 1830, also describing Cowdery’s mission and relating elements of the priesthood restoration.cdxxxii One article claimed: “[S]ome persons came along here with the book, one of whom pretends to have seen Angels…holds forth that the ordinances of the gospel, have not been regularly administered since the days of the Apostles, till the said Smith and himself commenced the work…The name of the person here, who pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels, is Cowdray.” The other stated: “Mr. Oliver Cowdry has his commission directly from the God of Heaven, and that he has credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ, with whom he has personally conversed, and as such, said Cowdry claims that he and his associates are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name. By this authority, they proclaim to the world, that all who do not believe their testimony, and be baptized by them for the remission of sins, and come under the imposition of their hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost…must be forever miserable.” Further, on October 12, 1831, William E. McLellin wrote in his journal of the higher and lesser Priesthoods, showing that he knew of the Priesthood restoration even if he did not know all of the details.cdxxxiii Another notable example is the Articles of the Church of Christ, which Cowdery recorded in June of 1829.cdxxxiv It states, “I speak unto you even as Paul, mine apostle, for ye [Cowdery] are called even with that same calling with which he was called.” Part of this record, including Cowdery’s apostolic calling like that of Paul, is now included in Section 18 of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 18:9).cdxxxv This document of Cowdery’s was later adapted into the Articles and Covenants, which was read and voted on at the formal organization of the Mormon Church on June 9, 1830, and which was reprinted in The Painesville Telegraph in April of 1831.cdxxxvi This is now Section 20 of The Doctrine and Covenants, which says that the commandments were given to Smith, “who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church,” and to Cowdery, “who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church” (D&C 20:2–3). Given all of these examples, it is inaccurate to state that it took them years to tell anyone and that no one, including their close friends and family members, had never even heard of the restoration of the Priesthood before 1832. Clearly, elements of it were known, even if some of the details were kept close. 

Regarding the “reception” vs. “restoration” claim, the same event was obviously being discussed, regardless of which word was used. Several of the accounts described above mention specifically that no one had the authority to preach and baptize since the days of the original Apostles of the Bible. Receiving that commission and authority after such a long absence would therefore constitute both a reception and a restoration. 

The full quote from Richard Bushman answers the question posed by the CES Letter: “Not until writing his 1832 history did Joseph include ‘reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel’ among the cardinal events of his history, a glancing reference at best. Joseph had not told his mother about his First Vision, and spoke to his father about Moroni only when commanded. His reticence may have shown a fear of disbelief. Although obscure, Joseph was proud. He did not like to appear the fool. Or he may have felt the visions were too sacred to be discussed openly. They were better kept to himself. The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary? If so, he made little of the occurrence. Cowdery was the first to recount the story of John’s appearance, not Joseph himself. … Joseph’s activities had not gone unnoticed in the neighborhood. He and Cowdery said nothing publicly about the vision of John the Baptist, but people knew about the translating. ‘We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time,’ Joseph said, ‘and this too by professors of religion.’”cdxxxvii It is understandable that some readers may disbelieve the accounts given by Smith and Cowdery, considering the vagueness of the earlier reports compared to the detail of the later accounts. Due to threats made against him and the mocking tone of some of the newspaper articles previously cited, however, it is also understandable that Smith may have wished to keep sacred details to himself until he felt the time was right to discuss them publicly.  

  • References

    cdxxx. See Brian Q. Cannon, BYU Studies Staff, “Documents of the Priesthood Restoration,” in Opening the HeavensAccounts of Divine Manifestations18201844 (Second Edition), ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book2017): 247–279, online at byustudies.byu.edu. For the earliest published version of The CES Letter, see Jeremy Runnells, A Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony (Self-published online, 2013): 45, online at bhroberts.org. 

    cdxxxi. “Book of Mormon,” The Reflector 2, no. 13 (February 14, 1831): 102, online at contentdm.lib.byu.edu.  

    cdxxxii. Brian Q. Cannon, BYU Studies Staff, “Documents of the Priesthood Restoration,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844 (Second Edition), ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2017): 264, online at byustudies.byu.edu. 

    cdxxxiii. See eds. Jan Shipps, John W. Welch, “William E. McLellin Journal I, July 18, 1831–November 20, 1831,” in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1994): 45, online at archive.org. 

    cdxxxiv. Joseph Smith Papers, “Appendix 3: ’Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” in Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Grant Underwood, et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2013): 368–377, online at josephsmithspapers.org. 

    cdxxxvi. See “Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 [D&C 20],” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed February 23, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cdxxxvii. Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, A cultural biography of Mormonism’s founder (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2005): 75–76, 1st Vintage Books edition, 2007. For the full quote by Joseph Smith regarding the harassment he endured at the hands of his neighbors, see Joseph Smith Papers, “History, circa June 1839–circa 1841 [Draft 2], Page 18,” in Histories, Volume 1: Histories, 1832–1844, ed. Karen Lynn Davidson, David J. Whittaker, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Richard L. Jensen (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2012): 186–463, online at josephsmithpapers.org. In full, the quote reads, “In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of our having been baptized, and having received this priesthood; owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood. We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time, and this too by professors of religion, and their intentions of mobbing us, were only counteracted by the influence of my wife’s father’s family (under Divine Providence) who had became very friendly to me and were opposed to mobs; and were willing that I should be allowed to continue the work of translation without interruption: And therefore offered and promised us protection from all unlawful proceedings as far as in them lay.” 

The CES Letter’s Narrative of David Whitmer’s Testimony and Historical Accuracy

David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, said that he’d never heard that an angel restored the Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery until the year “1834[,] 5, or 6” while they were in Ohio, and he didn’t believe John the Baptist had ever ordained them.  

The interview between David Whitmer and Zenas H. Gurley where this quote was taken from occurred on January 14, 1885, approximately 55 years after Smith and Cowdery claimed the restoration of the Priesthood took place.cdxxxviii In that same interview, Whitmer described Cowdery telling him that he and Smith were commanded to baptize one another. Edward Stevenson later interviewed Whitmer himself in February of 1886, and Whitmer repeated that he was unaware of Peter, James, and John visiting Smith and Cowdery. Stevenson also subsequently wrote in a letter to Mormon Apostle Franklin D. Richards that several of the other members of the Whitmer family were equally unaware of this event taking place, but that Whitmer regarded a commandment from God the only authority necessary for a restoration of the Priesthood.cdxxxix   

However, even with all of that, it is possible that Whitmer misremembered the details more than half a century after the events transpired. David H. Cannon reported that, when he visited Whitmer in 1861, Whitmer showed him Cowdery’s grave. As they stood beside the grave, Whitmer told Cannon that he’d heard Cowdery say, “I know the Gospel to be true and upon this head has Peter, James, and John laid their hands and conferred the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood.” Whitmer also demonstrated how this was done.cdxl While this is not conclusive evidence for or against Whitmer’s knowledge of the events prior to 1834–36, it does show that Cowdery was sharing the details of his experiences with others. The historicity on this event is complex and documentation is not as clear as any historian would like, so it is understandable if readers doubt the veracity of Smith and Cowdery’s claims. However, there is evidence supporting their claims as well, as we outlined above. 

Revisions to the Doctrine and Covenants: The CES Letter’s Analysis

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery added the appearances of John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John to the 1835 edition of The Doctrine and Covenants as if they’d been there all along when they weren’t. You can compare the 1833 Chapter 28, 1835 Section 50, and present day editions of The Doctrine and Covenants Section 27 at The Joseph Smith Papers. The 1835 and present-day versions are packed with miraculous claims that weren’t in the original version. 

It is true that some of the revelations, including today’s Doctrine and Covenants Section 27, were edited and revised.cdxli However, it is inaccurate to say that this was done “as if they’d been there all along when they weren’t.” It was known from the beginning that the revelations would be updated.cdxlii 

In the very early days of the Mormon Church, missionaries would make copies of the revelations to take with them as they proseltyzed. They would then orally explain the revelations and put them in context for those who did not know who or what was being discussed.cdxliii When the decision was made to print some of the revelations in The Book of Commandments, space was limited and Joseph Smith was selective about which revelations were included.cdxliv When the Doctrine and Covenants was being compiled, the decision was made that Smith would update, revise, and give context to the revelations, as well as correct any errors that may be in the text.cdxlv Similar revelations were combined, while others had significant revisions. Some were superceded by later revelations and were no longer applicable.cdxlvi  

Smith viewed the revelations as coming from God, but put into Smith’s words.cdxlvii Orson Pratt, an early Mormon Apostle, explained that Smith “received the ideas from God, but clothed those ideas with such words as came to his mind.”cdxlviii Because the Mormon Church has an open canon and believes in continuing public revelation, and because language is fluid, many Mormons do not take issue with their scriptures being updated occasionally to clarify certain verses and concepts. 

  • References

    cdxli. See Melvin J. Petersen, “Preparing Early Revelations for Publication,” Ensign (February 1985), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cdxlii. See “Minute Book 2, Page 16,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed February 26, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cdxliii. See Joseph Smith Papers, “Joseph Smith-Era Publications of Revelations,” in Revelations and Translations, Volume 2, ed. Richard E. Turley, Jr., Robin Scott Jensen, Riley M. Lorimer (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2011): Introduction, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cdxliv. Robert J. Woodford, “The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants,” Ensign (December 1984), online at churchofjesuschrist.org  

    cdxlv. See Robert J. Woodford, “Joseph Smith and the Revelations: From Manuscripts to Publication,” Mormon Historical Studies 6, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 135–144, online at ensignpeakfoundation.org. 

    cdxlvi. See Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,” Ensign (January 2013), online at churchofjesuschrist.org.  

    cdxlvii. See Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, A cultural biography of Mormonism’s founder (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2005): 174, 1st Vintage Books edition, 2007. The editing process uncovered Joseph’s anomalous assumptions about the nature of revelated words. He never considered the wording infallible. God’s language stood in an indefinite relationship to the human language coming through the Prophet. The revealed preface to the Book of Commandments specified that the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith’s. ‘These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.’ The revelations were not God’s diction, dialect, or native language. They were couched in language suitable to Joseph’s time. The idioms, the grammar, even the tone had to be comprehensible to 1830s Americans. Recognizing the pliability of the revealed words, Joseph freely edited the revelations ’by the holy Spirit,’ making emendations with each new edition. He thought of his revelations as imprinted on his mind, not graven in stone. With each edition, he patched pieces together and altered the wording to clarify meaning. The words were both his and God’s.” 

    cdxlviii. Robert J. Woodford, “Joseph Smith and the Revelations: From Manuscripts to Publication,” Mormon Historical Studies 6, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 138, online at ensignpeakfoundation.org. 

The Missing Book of Commandments According to the CES Letter

If the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hand of John the Baptist and the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of Peter, James, and John were recorded prior to 1833, events that miraculous should have appeared in The Book of Commandments, the precursor to The Doctrine and Covenants. However, neither account is included in The Book of Commandments. 

It is understandable that the author of the CES Letter would expect this full revelation to be included in The Book of Commandments if it was later included in the Doctrine and Covenants. However, that is not an accurate assumption. As the Mormon Church grew in size, Smith often added explanatory passages to some of the revelations to put them in context for those members who did not know him personally.cdxlix The revision process undertaken in preparation for the Doctrine and Covenants was also much more intensive than the one undertaken for The Book of Commandments.cdl It is therefore reasonable to expect that some revelations would have significant revisions between the publication of The Book of Commandments and the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Moreover, not every major event in Mormon Church history is included in The Book of Commandments or the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, even today Smith’s First Vision is not found in the Doctrine and Covenants, aside from vague allusions.cdli On the title page of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, it explains that the volume contains revelations that were “carefully selected from the revelations of God,” clearly indicating that it does not contain every revelation given to Smith.cdlii One should not therefore expect that every revelation Smith received is printed in either The Book of Commandments or the Doctrine and Covenants. 

  • References

    cdxlix. See Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,” Ensign (January 2013), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    cdl. See Joseph Smith Papers, “Book of Commandments, 1833, Page 3: Historical Introduction,” in Revelations and Translations, Volume 2: Published Revelations, ed. Richard E. Turley, Jr., Robin Scott Jensen, Riley M. Lorimer (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press): 3–172, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cdli. See Jim Bennett, “Priesthood Restoration Concerns & Questions,” in A CES Letter Reply: Faithful Answers For Those Who Doubt (Sandy, UT: Self-published, online, 2018), online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org. 

    cdlii. Joseph Smith Papers, “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, Page I” in Revelations and Translations, Volume 2: Published Revelations, ed. Richard E. Turley, Jr., Robin Scott Jensen, Riley M. Lorimer (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2011): 301–593, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

     

The CES Letter's Examination of the 1835 Retrofitting

In the 1835 edition of The Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery backdated and retrofitted the Priesthood restoration events to an 1829–30 time period—none of which existed in any previous Church records, including The Book of Commandments and the original Church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star newspaper.  

While some readers may come to the same conclusion as the CES Letter does in this regard, evidence does exist to show that elements of the Priesthood restoration were being discussed as early as 1829.  

As discussed above, Oliver Cowdery recorded his calling as an Apostle in June, 1829 in an official church record, and discussions of his and Smith’s encounters with angels and heavenly messengers, their commission from God, and the restored authority to preach and baptize were being discussed in newspapers in 1830–31.cdliii An early Mormon Apostle, William McLellin, wrote about the division of the higher and lower Priesthoods in his journal in 1831.cdliv Smith’s attempt at an official history, written in 1832, included discussion of the Priesthood restoration.cdlv Additionally, in 1833, the Reverend Richmond Taggart wrote in a letter to another reverend that Smith claimed to have seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles.cdlvi Lastly, Oliver Cowdery received a blessing on December 18, 1833, which was written into the official Patriarchal Blessing book on October 2, 1835. This blessing details the Priesthood restoration.cdlvii While not all of these mentions are from official Mormon Church records, several of them are. For the CES Letter to say that “none [of the Priesthood restoration events] existed in any previous Church records” is inaccurate. 

It is also important to note that the history given in The Evening and Morning Star newspaper was not meant to be a comprehensive history of the Mormon Church. It was an overview meant to show the progress and growth of the Church as it expanded across several states. In fact, the opening paragraph of that history specifically states that it is to give “a few facts, as they have occurred since the church was organized in in eighteen hundred and thirty” (emphasis added).cdlviii Since the restoration of the Priesthood is said to have taken place in 1829 before the Mormon Church was organized, it would not have been included in the paper’s history. 

  • References

    cdliii. See “Appendix 3: ’Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” in Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Grant Underwood, et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2013): 368–377, online at josephsmithpapers.org. See also Brian Q. Cannon, BYU Studies Staff, “Documents of the Priesthood Restoration,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844 (Second Edition), ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2017): 264, online at byustudies.byu.edu. 

    cdliv. See eds. Jan Shipps, John W. Welch, “William E. McLellin Journal I, July 18, 1831–November 20, 1831,” in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1994): 45, online at archive.org. 

    cdlv. See Joseph Smith Papers, “History, circa Summer 1832,” in Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844, ed. Karen Lynn Davidson, David J. Whittaker, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Richard L. Jensen (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2012): 2–23, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cdlvi. See Brian Q. Cannon, BYU Studies Staff, “Documents of the Priesthood Restoration,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844 (Second Edition), ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2017): 264, online at byustudies.byu.edu. 

    cdlvii. See “Appendix 5, Document 6. Blessing to Oliver Cowdery, 2 October 1835,” in Documents, Volume 5: October 1835–January 1838, ed. Brent M. Rogers, Elizabeth A. Kuehn, Christian K. Heimburger, et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2017): 511–514, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cdlviii. W. W. Phelps, “Rise and Progress of the Church,” The Evening and Morning Star 1, no. 11 (April 1833): 167, online at contentdm.lib.byu.edu. 

The CES Letter's Inquiry into Lyman Wight's Priesthood Ordination of Joseph Smith

The CES Letter quotes from Rough Stone Rolling (a cultural biography of Joseph Smith written by Richard Bushman), which gives details about early priesthood ordinations in the Mormon Church. The CES Letter then asks, “If Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph Smith to the Melchizedek priesthood in 1829, why did Lyman Wight ordain Joseph Smith to the Melchizedek priesthood again in 1831?”  

In a portion of Bushman’s book not quoted by the CES Letter, he suggests that Smith may not yet have realized that ordained elders already held the Melchizedek priesthood and that this new ordination was instead to a particular higher office of the Melchizedek priesthood (which priesthood had already been conferred upon him).cdlix In other words, the apparent discrepancy could be due to the fact that Smith’s knowledge of the priesthood was developing line upon line.  

Another possibility is that the previous ordinations to the office of elder within the Church did not constitute the fullness of the high or Melchizedek priesthood.cdlx If the 1831 conference was the first time that leaders within the Church were ordained to the office of high priest,cdlxi then it could, in a sense, be described as the first time that the Melchizedek priesthood—in its most full and complete form—was conferred within the Church.cdlxii  

  • References

    cdlix. Richard Lyman Bushman, “The Kirtland Visionaries, January–June 1831,” in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, A cultural biography of Mormonism’s founder” (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2007): 158–159: “The usual explanation is that Joseph meant to say ‘high priest,’ one of the offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood, not ‘high priesthood.’ By this interpretation, high priests, officers in the priesthood, were ordained for the first time at the conference, though the Melchizedek Priesthood was received earlier. But that is not what Joseph said. He said the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred for the first time. Men close to him put it the same way. … The confusion may indicate that the division into two priesthoods, with elders in the higher and priests and teachers in the lower, was not clear before 1831. Joseph may not have realized that elders were part of the Melchizedek Priesthood already and were being ordained to the office of high priest rather than receiving the powers of the high priesthood. Although he understood the distinction by the 1840s, he seems to have fallen back into the confusion of those early years when he wrote about the ordination. In this case, experience may have outrun comprehension. Because he knew so little about priesthood at the beginning, Joseph could no more grasp its meaning than he comprehended the full significance of the First Vision as a teenager. Although he understood such Church offices as a teacher and elder, it took time to comprehend that the powers of priesthood were included in the authority that went with those offices.” 

    cdlx. For the first instance of Church leaders being ordained to the office of “elder,” see History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834], p. 26–27, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 11, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org.   

    cdlxi. See Minutes, circa 3–4 June 1831, p. 4, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 11, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    cdlxii. As explained in D&C 88:29, “And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.” Note, in contrast, that the office of high priest is never described as an “appendage” to the Melchizedek priesthood. To a significant degree, the office of high priest seems to be the high or Melchizedek priesthood. As described in D&C 107, “All other authorities or offices in the church [including the Aaronic priesthood and its offices] are appendages to this [high] priesthood.” On another occasion, Joseph Smith explained, “All priesthood is Melchizedeck; but there are different portions or degrees of it.” See Discourse, 5 January 1841, as Reported by William Clayton, p. 5The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 11, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org.  

The CES Letter's Witnesses Criticisms

The CES Letter’s Evaluation of Book of Mormon Witnesses

“At the end of the day? It all doesn’t matter. The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant. It does not matter whether eleven 19th century treasure diggers with magical worldviews saw some gold plates or not. It doesn’t matter because of this one simple fact: JOSEPH DID NOT USE THE GOLD PLATES FOR TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON. The testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is a key part to the testimonies of many members of the Church. Some even base their testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon on these 11 witnesses and their claims. As a missionary, I was instructed to teach investigators about the testimonies of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon as part of boosting the book’s credibility. There are several critical problems for relying and betting on these 19th century men as credible witnesses.” 

While some readers may agree that the Witness statements in The Book of Mormon are irrelevant, it is unclear what that has to do with whether Joseph Smith used the translation instruments to read from the gold plates. Not only were the plates tangible evidence to believers that Smith’s story was true, but Smith was clearly familiar with them and their characters.cdlxiii Many Mormons do indeed feel strongly about the Witnesses and their testimonies. However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not encourage anyone basing their testimony of The Book of Mormon on the Witness statements, but on the confirmation of the Spirit (Mor. 10:4–5).  

The 19th Century’s “Magical” Worldview: Insights From the CES Letter

“In order to truly understand the Book of Mormon witnesses and the issues with their claims, one must understand the magical worldview of many people in early 19th century New England. These are people who believed in folk magic, divining rods, visions, second sight, peep stones in hats, treasure hunting (money digging or glass looking), and so on. Many people believed in buried treasure, the ability to see spirits and their dwelling places within the local hills and elsewhere. This is one reason why treasure digging as a paid service was practiced.  

Some of those living in the early 19th century—particularly in rural areas like Smith did—did indeed believe in folk magic like seer stones, divining rods, village healers, and having visions. This “magic” was less superstition and mysticism and more closely tied with Christianity than modern readers may suspect.cdlxiv However, it is justifiable that some readers may be confused or distrustful of figures purporting to believe in such things. That does not mean, though, that statements from the Book of Mormon Witnesses should be disregarded without considering the evidence. 

“Joseph Smith, his father, and his brother Hyrum had engaged in treasure hunting from 1820–1827. Joseph was hired by folks like Josiah Stowell, who Joseph mentions in his history. In 1826, Joseph was arrested and brought to court in Bainbridge, New York on the complaint of Stowell’s nephew who accused Joseph of being a ‘disorderly person and an imposter.’” 

It is true that Smith, his father, and his brother were hired as treasure-hunters on occasion, though they did not do this by trade. They were farmers and day laborers who were hired to perform various tasks, including searching for treasure.cdlxv This was something Smith admitted at various times, but which he also downplayed so that it would not be seen as something disreputable (Joseph Smith–History 1:56).cdlxvi  

Smith was charged with being a disorderly person by Stowell’s nephew, who felt Smith was defrauding his uncle. All known accounts of this trial vary on certain details, especially the outcome. Because Stowell was the alleged victim of the crime, he was the only one with real legal standing to complain about Smith’s behavior.  When Stowell instead testified in Smith’s defense and stated he “postiviely knew” that Smith could use his seer stone to locate lost objects, it appears that Smith was discharged.cdlxvii 

“This is one of the reasons why 21st century Mormons, once including myself, are so confused and bewildered when hearing stuff like Joseph Smith using a peep stone in a hat or Oliver Cowdery using a divining rod or dowsing rod….” The CES Letter then lays out evidence showing that today’s Doctrine and Covenants Section 8, which discusses Cowdery’s “gift of Aaron,” originally spoke of his “rod of nature,” which is another term for a divining rod. “Cowdery’s use of a divining rod to search for buried treasure evokes similar images of Joseph Smith hunting for treasure with a peep stone in a hat. Oliver also wished to use his divining rod … to translate ancient documents. Doctrine & Covenants Section 8 indicates that the Lord, through Joseph Smith, granted Oliver’s request to translate using a…rod.” 

Oliver Cowdery did also use a divining rod. In Vermont, dowsing rods were preferred over seer stones, though they were often used for the same purposes in addition to water dowsing.cdlxviii This included receiving revelation.cdlxix No known source provides evidence for or against Cowdery using his rod to search for buried treasure.cdlxx This unsubstantiated claim does not originally come from the CES Letter, but from Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.cdlxxi not attributed to Palmer. Additionally, in another instance of portions of the CES Letter being unattributed, most of the text regarding Cowdery’s divining rod is lifted without citation directly from a website critical of the Mormon Church titled MormonThink.cdlxxii 

 “This tells us that the origins of the Church are much more rooted in folk magic and superstition than we’ve been led to believe by the LDS Church’s whitewashing of its origins and history.” 

This information may be unsettling if you were previously unaware of this history. These are not practices employed in today’s world, though water dowsing is still practiced by some farmers and land-surveyors. It is also understandable to feel lied to, or to agree with the CES Letter that the Mormon Church whitewashed its history to remove the more peculiar or strange aspects.   

While the early Mormons did alter the phrasing in the way they discussed these things from “seer stone” to “Urim and Thummim” and “divining rod” to “gift of Aaron,” it appears they were attempting to tie their use of such objects back to biblical Christianity, rather than to hide the usage altogether.cdlxxiii According to several Mormon historians, as Smith grew more comfortable with his prophetic abilities and how to use them, he moved farther and farther away from the folk magic of his youth.cdlxxiv The language he used in describing those things seem to have adjusted accordingly.  

  • References

    cdlxiv. See Eric A. Eliason, “Seer Stones, Salamanders, and Early Mormon ’Folk Magic’ in the Light of Folklore Studies and Bible Scholarship,” BYU Studies Quarterly 55, no. 1 (2016): 73–93, online at byustudies.byu.edu; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Digging,” BYU Studies Quarterly 24, no. 4 (1984): 524, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu. 

    cdlxv. See Richard Lyman Bushman, “7: The Kirtland Visionaries, January–June 1831,” in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, A cultural biography of Mormonism’s founder” (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2005): 48–52, 1st Vintage Books edition, 2007; Steven C. Harper, “Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?” BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 4 (2023): 37–55, online at byustudies.byu.edu. Joseph Smith, Sr., was reputed to be a “rodsman,” which were used in the Vermont area to receive revelation, and there is some evidence that he asked the rod for guidance when deciding to move his family to Palmyra, New York. For further details, see Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith, Junior as a Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet” (Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, 2000): 79–80, 82–84, online at digitalcommons.usu.edu. 

    cdlxvi. See Joseph Smith Papers, “Questions and Answers, 8 May 1838, Page 43,” in Documents, Volume 6: February 1838–August 1839, ed. Mark Ashurst-McGee, David W. Grua, Elizabeth A. Kuehn, et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2017): 139–145, online at josephsmithpapers.org. The relevant portion reads, “Question 10. Was not Jo Smith a money digger. Answer. Yes, but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.” 

    cdlxvii. Gordon A. Madsen, “Joseph Smith’s 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting,” BYU Studies Quarterly 30, no. 2 (1990): 91–108, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu; Gordon A. Madsen, “Chapter Four: Being Acquitted of a ’Disorderly Person’ Charge in 1826,” in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, ed. Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014): 71–92, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org. 

    cdlxviii. See Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith, Junior as a Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet” (Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, 2000): 66–68, 77–78, 149–152, online at digitalcommons.usu.edu. 

    cdlxix. See Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith, Junior as a Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet” (Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, 2000): 80–84, 122, online at digitalcommons.usu.edu; Jeffrey G. Cannon, “Oliver Cowdery’s Gift,” in Revelations in Context: The Stories Behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2016), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. Ashurst-McGee’s thesis describes rod diviners asking yes or no questions, and if the response was yes, the rod would vibrate. If the answer was no, the rod would remain still. This is likely also the means by which Cowdery would have used his own rod to receive revelation. 

    cdlxx. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Digging,” BYU Studies Quarterly 24, no. 4 (1984): 528, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu; Larry E. Morris, “Oliver Cowdery’s Vermont Years and the Origens of Mormonism,” BYU Studies Quarterly 39, no. 1 (2000): 116, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu; ed. Dan Vogel, “Barnes Frisbie Account, 1867,” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 1 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1996): 600, 604, online at archive.org. Taken from the end of the Editorial Note on page 600, “Because Joseph Smith, Sr., and William Cowdery cannot be linked unequivocally to the Vermont money diggers, Frisbie’s late account must be approached cautiously.” On page 604, see footnote 11: “Quinn states, ‘From 1800 to 1802, Nathaniel Wood’s ‘use of the rod was mostly as a medium of revelation.’…Thus, a connection between William Cowdery and the Wood Scrape would help to explain why his son Oliver had a rod through which he received revelations” before he met Joseph Smith in April 1829” (1987, 32). Yet, there is no evidence which directly attributes Cowdery’s rod to his father.’” 

    cdlxxi. See Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2002): 179, online at archive.org. 

    cdlxxii. See “The Rod of Aaron,” MormonThinkaccessed March 4, 2024, online at web.archive.org. 

    cdlxxiii. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Digging,” BYU Studies Quarterly 24, no. 4 (1984): 527–546, online at scholarsarchive.byu.eduAfter wide-ranging attacks emphasizing the weirdness of the practices and making a mockery of them, such as Abner Cole/Obadiah Dogberry’s articles in the Palmyra Reflectorincluding a satirical take on The Book of Mormon titled The Book of Pukei, and E. D. Howe’s infamous Mormonism Unvailed, early Latter-day Saints may have wished to de-emphasize the unusual aspects of their religion and emphasize the links with established biblical canonprophets, and their revelatory tools. 

    cdlxxiv. See Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith, Junior as a Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet” (Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, 2000): 1–387, online at digitalcommons.usu.edu; Steven C. Harper, “Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?” BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 4 (2023): 37–55, online at byustudies.byu.edu; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Digging,” BYU Studies Quarterly 24, no. 4 (1984): 489560, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu.  

The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Witnesses, According to the CES Letter

“We are told that the witnesses never disavowed their testimonies, but we have not come to know these men or investigated what else they said about their experiences. They are 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon: Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Hiram Page, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith Sr. – who all shared a common worldview of second sight, magic, and treasure digging – which is what drew them together in 1829.” 

Large portions of the text of this claim did not originate with the CES Letter, but were again taken without attribution from Palmer’s An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.cdlxxv   

Many reasons could be argued for the witnesses gathering together: that they were mostly either Smith family members or Whitmer family members,cdlxxvi that Harris lived in close proximity to the Smiths and was a family friend,cdlxxvii that Cowdery lived with the Smiths for a time as he taught school,cdlxxviii that Cowdery claimed to have a vision of the Lord sending him to Smith,cdlxxix  or that Cowdery met David Whitmer and became his friend, inviting him and his family into the larger group.cdlxxx While it may be possible to support a claim that they were brought together by a shared worldview that included second sight, magic, and treasure-digging, one could also support the claim that they held a shared worldview of devout Christianity.cdlxxxi  

There are no accounts of the Whitmers engaging in treasure digging, or of Cowdery doing so. There is one uncorroborated account, given in a book compiled to criticize the Mormon Church, that alleges Hiram Page was a money digger.cdlxxxii This may be due to his owning a seer stone through which he received revelations, as there are no other accounts to back up the claim of his treasure digging.cdlxxxiii  

“Martin Harris was anything but a skeptical witness. He was known by many of his peers as an unstable, gullible, and superstitious man. Brigham Young once said of Martin: ‘As for Martin Harris, he had not much to apostatize from; he possessed a wild, speculative brain. I have heard Joseph correct him and exhort him to repentance for teaching false doctrines.’ Reports assert that he and the other witnesses never literally saw the gold plates, but only an object said to be the plates, covered with a cloth. Additionally, Martin Harris had a direct conflict of interest in being a witness. He was deeply financially invested in the Book of Mormon as he mortgaged his farm to finance the book.” The CES Letter then gives several examples to demonstrate Harris’s superstitious nature. 

Martin Harris was described by Palmyra townspeople as being honest, hardworking, and industrious. Only in his belief in The Book of Mormon and in Smith’s role as a prophet was his judgment questioned.cdlxxxiv Religion is a personal and often subjective thing, and some of Harris’s beliefs may seem strange to those hearing them.cdlxxxv However, this does not mean that he was gullible or unstable. He is actually seen by many Mormons as being the most skeptical of the Witnesses.cdlxxxvi  This is because he switched Smith’s seer stone with a fake in order to test his ability to translate, took a copy of some of the characters from the gold plates to professors to verify them, took the manuscript home to show to his friends and family, and questioned Smith, Emma Smith, and others in the Smith family to confirm that they all told the same story. He also told Smith that if The Book of Mormon translation was the work of the Devil, he would have no part in it, but if the Lord would confirm that the work was his, he would help Smith pay for whatever he needed.cdlxxxvii 

Brigham Young was famously devoted to Joseph Smith.cdlxxxviii He saved his harshest criticisms for those who he believed turned against Smith.cdlxxxix If he said the above quote about Harris, it was in 1862.cdxc Harris did not return to the Mormon Church until 1870.cdxci If the quote came from Young, it would have been while Harris still believed Smith was a fallen prophet. However, the quote cannot be corroborated because the original shorthand transcript of the sermon is no longer extant.cdxcii According to publishing standards of the day, the reporter would have edited, deleted, added, and rephrased multiple sentences in the sermon before publishing it.cdxciii Without the extant original transcript of the sermon, it is unknown if this quote was given by Young or added by the reporter during the editing process.   

Harris was indeed the main financial backer of The Book of Mormon.cdxciv Rather than earning him money, however, Harris lost his fortune and ended his life destitute. His testimony also came before he mortgaged his farm to pay the printing costs.cdxcv On his deathbed, he said, “[H]ad I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear, I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing, for these things are true.”cdxcvi  

It should also be noted that most of the CES Letter text from this section on Harris is taken without attribution from a now-defunct website critical of the Mormon Church titled The Mormon Curtain.cdxcvii 

“Before Harris became a Mormon, he had already changed his religion at least five times. After Joseph’s death, Harris continued this earlier pattern by joining and leaving 5 more different sects, including that of James Strang (whom Harris went on a mission to England for), other Mormon offshoots, and the Shakers. Not only did Harris join other religions, he testified and witnessed for them. It has been reported that Martin Harris “declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon” (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p.173). In addition to his devotion to self-proclaimed prophet James Strang, Martin Harris was a follower to another self-proclaimed Mormon prophet by the name of Gladden Bishop. Like Strang, Bishop claimed to have plates, a Urim and Thummim, and that he was receiving revelation from the Lord. Martin was one of Gladden Bishop’s witnesses to his claims.”  

According to Martin Harris, the claim of his joining numerous churches is exaggerated. He stated that he only visited them occasionally and engaged with the churchgoers, but refused joining any of them.cdxcviii After leaving the fledging Mormon Church due to tensions with Joseph Smith, Harris never officially joined any other church, never abandoned his testimony of The Book of Mormon, and never denied that Smith had been a prophet in the early days of the church, even if he no longer believed Smith was still a prophet.cdxcix Harris did display a religious instability that Whitmer and Cowdery did not.d However, that instability did not extend to his testimony of The Book of Mormon or of his belief that, at the time of the translation, Smith was a prophet called by God. 

It is unclear whether Harris ever actually made the statement attributed him regarding the Shakers and their book. Clark Braden was a fierce debator who spent his life trying to correct what he saw as religious error. He was “known to be fast and free with his accusations and facts” and “demonstrated a greater devotion to winning than to historical accuracy.” Many of his statements from the Braden-Kelly debate can be shown to be incorrect.di Phineas Young, the brother of Brigham, also wrote a letter to Salt Lake saying Harris had made a similar claim.dii That letter is vaguely worded, however, and is unclear whether Young heard Harris say this, or heard others claim that Harris said it. Regardless of whether Harris made the statement or not, his affiliation with the Shakers was finished before 1855.diii  

While in England on behalf of Strang, Harris’s mission was cut short. There are reports that he repeatedly testified of The Book of Mormon instead of Strang’s church, and that he even at one point denied being affiliated with Strang.div Whatever his affiliation with Strang may have been, it was shortlived and Harris placed more emphasis on his old beliefs than his new ones. 

There is no evidence Harris was a witness for Gladden Bishop. Bishop claimed to have received a revelation naming Harris as one of his witnesses, but there is no evidence that Harris ever accepted that revelation or served as one of those witnesses.dv  

“If someone testified to you of an unusual spiritual encounter he had, but he also told you that he conversed with Jesus who took the form of a deer, saw the devil with his four feet and donkey head, chipped off a chunk of a stone box that would mysteriously move beneath the ground to avoid capture, interpreted simple things like a flickering of a candle as a sign of the devil, [and] had a creature appearing on his chest that no one else could see…would you believe his claims? Or would you call the nearest mental hospital? With inconsistencies, a conflict of interest, magical thinking, and superstition like this, exactly what credibility does Martin Harris have and why should I believe him?”  

Throughout his life, Harris made repeated, strong statements in support of The Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith.dvi Whether readers choose to believe those statements or his other, unclear statements instead is at their discretion, but Mormons believe in Harris’s credibility. They point to his reputation—even from critics—as an honest man in support of that belief.  

The CES Letter quotes three accounts taken from interviews with David Whitmer. The first says that Whitmer claimed to have seen “one of the Nephites” carrying records in a knapsack, heading for Cumorah. Several days later, he apparently saw that same person under the shed. In the second account, Whitmer is alleged to have said that the angel who showed him the plates had “no appearance or shape.” When pressed as to how he could claim to have seen and heard an angel after that, he said it was an impression, like when a Methodist has a happy feeling, or a Quaker feels the Spirit move. In the third account, a young Mormon lawyer named James Henry Moyle asked if there was any possibility Whitmer was deceived. Whitmer’s answer was “unequivocal…that he saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakeable clearness.” The young man was somewhat disappointed that the experience was more spiritual instead of more practical.  

The first account repeated in the CES Letter is taken from page 179 of Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. Palmer got the account from Whitmer’s interview with Edward Stevenson in 1877.dvii Whitmer also repeated most of this same account in far more detail in an interview with Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith in 1878.dviii He did not mention the portion with the shed in the second account, so the details of the personage being underneah it are not clear. It was shortly after this that the same figure is said to have appeared to Mary Whitmer, showing her the gold plates.dix 

The CES Letter next quotes an account of an interview between Whitmer and John Murphy, supposedly taken from Dan Vogel’s Early Mormon Documents, Volume 5. However, while the Murphy interview is in the book in question, the quoted paragraph in the CES Letter is not.dx Instead, a nearly identical passage appears on The Mormon Curtain, and is not attributed by the CES Letter.dxi Whitmer disputed this interview when it was printed and issued a proclamation in which he addressed Murphy by name and corrected what he felt were lies and distortions by the reporter.dxii Because Whitmer himself disputes this interview and claims that Murphy fabricated the details of the account, the account should likely be disregarded as inaccurate.   

The third account is by James Henry Moyle, father of Mormon Apostle Henry D. Moyle. When Moyle was a young man, he met Whitmer and asked him about his experiences. Moyle left repeated accounts of this conversation throughout his life.dxiii In one account given on March 18, 1945, he explained his disappointment. “There was only one thing that did not fully satisfy me. I had difficulty then as I have now to describe just what was unsatisfactory. I worte in my diary immediately on my return home, that in describing the scene in the woods he was ‘somewhat spiritual in his explanations and not as materialistic as I wished.’”dxiv Moyle had hoped the experience was more practical and mundane, like that of the Eight Witnesses, rather than the more spiritual experience of the Three Witnesses. Because he was an academic, the experience of the Eight Witnesses was easier for him to understand. 

“Whitmer’s testimony also included the following: ‘If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.’’— DAVID WHITMER, AN ADDRESS TO ALL BELIEVERS IN CHRIST (PROMOTING HIS WHITMERITE SECT) . If David Whitmer is a credible witness, why are we only using his testimony of the Book of Mormon while ignoring his other testimony claiming that God Himself spoke to Whitmer “by his own voice from the heavens” in June 1838, commanding Whitmer to apostatize from the Lord’s one and only true Church?” 

In his An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer did state that he heard the voice of the Lord telling him to separate himself from among the Latter-day Saints.dxv In that Address, he specifies twice that this occurred in June, 1838. This is significant for two reasons. First, David Whitmer was excommunicated from the Mormon Church on April 13, 1838, the day after Oliver Cowdery was also excommunicated.dxvi Second, famed Mormon orator Sidney Rigdon gave a speech on June 17, 1838, titled the “Salt Sermon.”dxvii While the text of this speech is no longer extant, it was fiery enough to create a group of Mormon vigilantes calling themselves the Danites, who were determined to chase Whitmer and Cowdery from the settlement of Far West, Missouri.dxviii On June 19, 1838, they wrote and signed what has been termed the Danite Manifesto, advising Whitmer and Cowdery to leave town.dxix   

Taking both of these things into account, it means that when Whitmer claimed to hear the voice of the Lord telling him to leave Far West, he was no longer a Mormon and there was also a very real threat to his life if he’d stayed. His leaving town at that time made sense, even if you don’t believe that the Lord advised him to leave. 

“Like Joseph and most of the Book of Mormon witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and his family were treasure hunters. Oliver’s preferred tool of trade, as mentioned above, was the divining rod. He was known as a ‘rodsman.’ Along with the witnesses, Oliver held a magical worldview. Also, Oliver Cowdery was not an objective and independent witness. As scribe for the Book of Mormon, co-founder of the Church, and cousin to Joseph Smith, a conflict of interest existed in Oliver being a witness.” 

There is no evidence for or against the Cowdery family being treasure-hunters. Seven years before the Cowdery family moved to Middletown, Vermont, there was an incident called the “Wood Scrape,” in which a group of treasure-hunters used a divining rod to receive revelation about the end of the world. The Apocalypse did not come when the group predicted it would, and they subsequently disbanded. Cowdery’s father later befriended one of the men involved, which in turn led to rumors that Cowdery’s father and Smith’s father were both involved in the Wood Scrape when they were not.dxx Since this faulty account is the only account that exists labeling the Cowdery family as treasure-hunters, it is not possible to support this charge through the historical record.   

What can be supported through the historical record is the claim that Cowdery used a divining rod. He was indeed a “rodsman,” but he did not do this by trade. At the time of the translation of The Book of Mormon, Cowdery was a schoolteacher.dxxi 

Cowdery was not financially invested in The Book of Mormon, so no conflict of interest exists. As for being a “cousin to Joseph Smith,” Cowdery was the third cousin of Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith’s mother. They had the same great-great-grandfather. This made Cowdery Joseph Smith’s third cousin once removed. It was not a close relation, and there is no indication that either the Cowderys or the Smiths even knew of the relationship.dxxii  

The CES Letter’s Evaluation of Second Sight and Spiritual Witnesses

“People believed they could see things as a vision in their mind. They called it ‘second sight.’ We call it ‘imagination.’ It made no difference to these people if they saw with their natural eyes or their spiritual eyes as both were one and the same. As mentioned previously, people believed they could see spirits and their dwelling places in the local hills along with seeing buried treasure deep in the ground. This supernatural way of seeing the world is also referred in Doctrine & Covenants as ‘the eyes of our understanding.’” 

In this paragraph, the CES Letter conflates five different things as if they’re identical, but they are not. “Second sight” is another term for clairvoyance, or the psychic ability to see remote or future events.dxxiii “Imagination” is when you invent new concepts, ideas, events, places, or people that do not exist in reality.dxxiv “Natural eyes” referred to somebody’s ordinary vision, as one would look at the world around them, while “spiritual eyes” referred to how visions were seen. If somebody in the 18th or 19th century claimed to see, hear, or touch a divine messenger with their natural body, they were considered to be insane and risked institutionalization.dxxv Lastly, the Doctrine and Covenants defines “the eyes of our understanding” as the “veil [being] taken from our minds” (D&C 110:1).   

The Book of Mormon further clarifies that the people “truly saw with their eyes” the things they saw with “the eye of faith” (Ether 12:19). The Pearl of Great Price explains that a person needed to be transfigured to see heavenly messengers with their spiritual eyes, because if they didn’t go through that process and simply looked with their natural eyes, they would have “withered and died” in the Lord’s presence (Moses 1:11). 

 Therefore, it is not accurate to imply that these five things held the same meaning to those living in 19th century America. This is particularly true for Mormons, whose latter-day scripture defines “natural eyes,” “spiritual eyes,” “the eyes of our understanding,” and “the eye of faith” to be entirely different things. 

“If the plates and the experiences were real and tangible as 21st century Mormons are led to believe, why would the witnesses make the following kind of statements when describing the plates and the experience?” The CES Letter then lists various accounts of people saying they heard Martin Harris describe seeing the gold plates with a spiritual eye, an eye of faith, in a vision, or in an entranced state. “If these witnesses literally really saw the plates like everyone else on the planet sees tangible objects…why strange statements like, ‘I never saw them only as I see a city through a mountain’? What does that even mean? I have never seen a city through a mountain. Have you? Why all these bizarre statements from the witnesses if the plates were real and the event literal? Why would you need a vision or supernatural power to see real physical plates that Joseph said were in a box that he carried around?” 

The CES Letter cites what it labels as 11 different quotes from Martin Harris supposedly saying that he only saw the gold plates with spiritual eyes, in a vision, in an entranced state, or with the eye of faith. However, many of these quotes are taken from the same accounts, just divided into multiple statements to appear as though there are more of them than there actually are. Of the 11 quotes, two are from the same account by Anthony Metcalf.dxxvi Three of them were from the same account by John A. Clark.dxxvii Four, possibly five, were from people quoting John H. Gilbert.dxxviii None of these statements are firsthand accounts from Harris, and most are from decades later. Regarding the content of the quotes, each of the Three Witnesses struggled to find words to describe what they had seen. However, they all repeatedly affirmed that they saw the angel, the gold plates, the interpreter stones, and the sword with their physical eyes.dxxix Earlier, Mormon scriptures were quoted as showing that, when viewed through the “eye of faith,” objects were still seen with their natural eyes (Ether 12:19), and that viewing things through “spiritual eyes” meant the act of being transfigured to see divine messengers without harm (Moses 1:11). Harris was once described as being able to “quote more scripture than any man in the neighborhood.”dxxx When he used the scriptural terms, it is reasonable to assume that he meant them the way they were used in Mormon scripture. Additionally, one scholar explains that for Harris, being shown these objects by the power/with the authorization of God meant that he was seeing them spiritually.dxxxi 

The statement regarding seeing a city through the mountain is taken from an account by Stephen Burnett. The source cited in the CES Letter, that of the Joseph Smith Letter Book, page 2, is incorrect. The document is actually found in the Joseph Smith Letter Book 2, page 64.dxxxii The statement in question was claimed to have been said during a gathering of dissenters who had left the Mormon Church during the Kirtland tensions. They were debating whether or not to reject The Book of Mormon as scripture. Harris allegedly said that the Eight Witnesses never saw the plates. He later recanted that statement, saying it had been “picked out of him,” and said that he had seen them “as a city through a mountain.”dxxxiii As this statement cannot be corroborated by the other accounts of that meeting still extant, it is unclear what Harris may have meant, or whether he even said it as recorded.dxxxiv 

As explained earlier, when people asked Harris to say whether he saw the gold plates with his natural eyes or his spiritual eyes, they were laying a verbal trap. If he said that he saw them with spiritual eyes, the way that visions were commonly said to be seen, critics could downplay that as being imaginary. But if he said that he saw them with his natural eyes, the way that you see something physically before you, they could say that he was crazy.dxxxv Harris himself seemed to have his own way of defining “spiritual eyes” versus “natural eyes,” in that if he was authorized by God to see the gold plates, he was seeing them spiritually even if he saw them with his physical eyes.dxxxvi 

The CES Letter appears to confuse the Three Witnesses with the Eight Witnesses with their last question, why someone would need supernatural power to see physical plates. The difference between the two sets of witnesses is the delivery method. The Eight Witnesses had a practical, physical experience in which Smith simply showed them the plates and let them hold them and turn their pages. The Three Witnesses, however, claimed they were shown the plates by an angel. It was not the gold plates that they needed the supernatural power to see, but rather, the angel. Because an angel is a divine heavenly messenger, the Three Witnesses would have needed to be transfigured to view the angel without the experience causing them physical harm. That is the experience that they described when they made statements saying they saw things in a spiritual view, but naturally through the body.dxxxvii 

“When Martin Harris was asked, ‘But did you see them [plates] with your natural, your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.’ Martin answered, ‘I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.’–Origin and History of the Mormonites, p.406. Why couldn’t Martin just simply answer ‘yes’?” 

The full account in question is taken from the John A. Clark account cited earlier, and includes additional detail not given in the CES Letter: “A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,—“Did you see those plates?” Harris replied he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,—they were shown to me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,—your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Harris replied,—“Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,—though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.”dxxxviii 

The CES Letter asks why Harris couldn’t simply say “yes” when asked if he saw them with his natural eyes. In the full account, Harris did simply say yes, twice. The questioner refused to accept his answer and continued to press him. Eventually, Harris explained that they were shown to him by the power of God, not of man, and that he saw them with the eye of faith. As outlined earlier, Harris considered the “eye of faith” to mean that he was shown the plates by a divine messenger, and that he had authorization from God to view them.dxxxix 

“James Strang and his claims are fascinating. He was basically Joseph Smith 2.0–but with a twist. Like Joseph, Strang did the following: claimed that he was visited by an angel who reserved plates for him to translate into the word of God. ‘The record which was sealed from my servant Joseph. Unto thee it is reserved’; received the ‘Urim and Thummim’; produced 11 witnesses who testified that they too had seen and inspected ancient metal plates; introduced new scripture. After unearthing the plates (the same plates as Laban from whom Nephi took the brass plates in Jerusalem), Strang translated it into scripture called the ‘Book of the Law of the Lord’; and established a new Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite). Its headquarters is still today in Voree, Wisconsin. Like the Book of Mormon, the Book of the Law of the Lord has the testimony of its Witnesses in its preface.” The CES Letter then reproduces both the testimonies of the Seven Witnesses who handled the Voree plates and the Four Witnesses who went with Strang to the place where he said they were, and helped him dig them up.  

Though there are some similarities between the claims of James Strang and Joseph Smith, there are many differences between the two, as well. Strang left multiple records in his youth of being an atheist who dreamed of being royalty and having power over others.dxl Conversely, Smith claimed to be a devout religious believer even while in his youth (Joseph Smith–History 1:6–13). The visions of an angel that Strang claimed to receive were seen only by Strang, whereas Smith had multiple shared visions in which others such as Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Frederick G. Williams all claimed to see the same things Smith did.dxli Strang was the only person to see the “Urim and Thummim” that he claimed to receive, while Smith’s “Urim and Thummim” were seen by Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer, as well as Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith.dxlii  The sealed portion of The Book of Mormon was claimed by Strang to be the three plates he unearthed in Voree, Wisconsin, which he supposedly translated into the record of Rajah Manchou of Vorito. However, according to The Book of Mormon text and the Witnesses to the plates, the sealed portion is the record of the Brother of Jared and his vision of the history of the world, and comprised one half to two-thirds of the gold plates.dxliii Additionally, Strang’s church has approximately 300 members today, while Smith’s church has approximately 17 million members. Though the size of the respective churches has no bearing on their truthfulness, only the Mormon Church can claim to fulfill the prophecy Smith made in the Wentworth Letter in which the work Smith started would fill the earth and sound in every ear.dxliv  

The CES Letter is incorrect when it claims that the plates unearthed in Voree, Wisconsin, in front of witnesses were translated into The Book of the Law of the Lord. The Book of the Law of the Lord came from separate plates that Strang somehow received, said to have been a lost book of the Bible, which were held in the Ark of the Covenant until they mysteriously disappeared from Israel and eventually ended up in Strang’s possession.dxlv  As explained above, the Voree Plates were translated into the record of Rajah Manchou of Vorito. 

The testimony of Strang’s Seven Witnesses, who claimed to have handled the plates that comprised The Book of the Law of the Lord, is nearly identical to the testimony of Smith’s Eight Witnesses, even reciting some of the phrases verbatim.dxlvi The testimony of Strang’s Four Witnesses claim to have been with Strang while the Voree Plates, the record of Rajah Manchou of Vorito, were unearthed. Both of these testimonies describe practical, physical experiences. There is no comparable testimony to that of the Three Witnesses, who claimed to have been shown the gold plates by an angel.  

“Like Joseph, Strang had a scribe (Samuel Graham) who wrote as Strang translated. Along with several of the witnesses, Graham was later excommunicated from Strang’s Church. There is no direct evidence that any of the above 11 Strang witnesses ever denied their testimony of James Strang, the Voree Plates, Strang’s church, or Strang’s divine calling. Every single living Book of Mormon witness besides Oliver Cowdery accepted Strang’s prophetic claim of being Joseph’s true successor and joined him and his church. Additionally, every single member of Joseph Smith’s family except for Hyrum’s widow also endorsed, joined, and sustained James Strang as ‘Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.’ What does this say about the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses if they were so easily duped by James Strang and his claims of being a prophet called of God to bring forth new scripture from ancient plates only to later turn out to be a fraud?” 

Strang did indeed use a scribe the way that Smith did. The difference between these two instances is that Smith was not adept at writing, and he needed a scribe in order to finish the translation of The Book of Mormon, whereas Strang was a former newspaper editor and lawyer who did not need to use a scribe.dxlvii The reason for Strang’s use of a scribe is unclear, unless he was simply imitating Smith.  

While it is accurate to say that no direct, firsthand evidence exists to show that Strang’s witnesses denied their testimonies, there are several secondhand accounts of the witnesses claiming it was a hoax and detailing how that hoax was perpetrated.dxlviii For the CES Letter to stress that no firsthand account exists detailing these things, after citing numerous secondhand accounts of the witnesses to The Book of Mormon and treating those as if they were direct quotes, is both disingenuous and hypocritical. All secondhand reports should be treated with the same level of skepticism or acceptance, regardless of whose story they support. to stress that no firsthand account exists detailing these things, after citing numerous secondhand accounts of the witnesses to The Book of Mormon and treating those as if they were direct quotes, is both disingenuous and hypocritical. All secondhand reports should be treated with the same level of skepticism or acceptance, regardless of whose story they support. 

 To say that every living Book of Mormon Witness besides Oliver Cowdery and every member of the Smith family besides Hyrum’s widow all accepted Strang’s prophetic claims is an inaccurate statement. The evidence of the Whitmer family joining Strang is minimal at best. Strang himself singled out David Whitmer as an antagonist toward his claims.dxlix John Whitmer wrote in his journal about being intrigued by Strang, but later crossed it out.dl No member of the Whitmer family ever followed Strang to Wisconsin or Michigan, and the only other evidence that exists of their support of Strang came directly from Strang. The only Book of Mormon Witness we know for certain joined Strang was Martin Harris. As explained earlier, that was short-lived, and while on his mission for Strang, Harris continuously testified of The Book of Mormon instead of Strang, and even denied being affiliated with Strang.dli Regarding the Smith family’s involvement with Strang, only Smith’s brother William is known for certain to have been affiliated with Strang.dlii He was temporarily an apostle for Strang’s new church, though he was excommunicated a year later, and he likely wrote a letter on Strang’s behalf.dliii This letter—along with one claiming to be from Lucy Mack Smith—was printed in the Voree Herald in June, 1846.dliv The letter allegedly from Lucy Mack Smith was also signed by two of her daughters, including Katharine Salisbury. Salisbury and her own daugther Josephine both denied that neither she, her mother, or her sisters ever wrote or signed their names to that letter.dlv Whether any of them besides Harris and William Smith joined Strang is uncertain, and Harris and Smith’s affiliation with Strang was brief in each case. 

As for what this suggests about the Book of Mormon Witnesses, that answer is debatable. While there are some superficial similarities between the two groups of witnesses, there are many more differences. For example, all of Strang’s witnesses abruptly stopped testifying of Strang’s plates after they left his church, unlike the witnesses to The Book of Mormon.dlvi Because of differences such as these and those outlined above, it is difficult to say whether this suggests anything about the Witnesses to The Book of Mormon. 

  • References

    dxxiii. See “Second Sight,” Dictionary.com, accessed March 4, 2024, online at dictionary.com. 

    dxxiv. See “Imagination,” Dictionary.com, accessed March 4, 2024, online at dictionary.com. 

    dxxv. See Neal Rappleye, “Material Plates, Spiritual Vision: Martin Harris, Divine Materiality, and Seeing with ’Spiritual Eyes,’” in Steadfast in Defense of Faith: Essays in Honor of Daniel C. Peterson, ed. Shirley S. Ricks, Stephen D. Ricks, Louis C. Midgley (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation and Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2023): 276–277. 

    dxxvi. See ed. Dan Vogel, “20. Martin Harris Interview with Anthony Metcalf, circa 1873–1874,” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998): 346–349, online at archive.org. 

    dxxvii. See ed. Dan Vogel, “1. Martin Harris Interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828: [2. Letter, 31 August 1840],” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998): 269–271, online at archive.org. 

    dxxviii. See ed. Dan Vogel, “John H. Gilbert Collection: 3. John H. Gilbert to James T. Cobb, 16 March 1879,” “John H. Gilbert Collection: 10. John H. Gilbert Memorandum, 8 September 1892,” and “John H. Gilbert Collection: 11. John H. Gilbert Interview, 1893,” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: 1998): 526, 548, 551, online at archive.org. The account that cites an anonymous source, which may or may not have been Gilbert, is from Jesse Townsend. To read this account in full, see ed. Dan Vogel, “6. Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833,” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 3 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2000): 20–23, online at archive.org. All accounts that refer to Harris’s claim of seeing the plates with “spiritual eyes” that have a known source of the quotation are quoting John Gilbert. 

    dxxix. For example, David Whitmer once said, “Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time.” See Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon WItnesses (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1981): 87 for the full account. 

    dxxx. Ronald W. Walker, “Martin Harris: Mormonism’s Early Convert,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 4 (Winter 1986): 33, online at dialoguejournal.com. 

    dxxxi. See Neal Rappleye, “Material Plates, Spiritual Vision: Martin Harris, Divine Materiality, and Seeing with ’Spiritual Eyes,’” in Steadfast in Defense of Faith: Essays in Honor of Daniel C. Peterson, ed. Shirley S. Ricks, Stephen D. Ricks, Louis C. Midgley (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation and Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2023): 278–288. 

    dxxxii. See “Letterbook 2, Page 64,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 5, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. The account can also be found in Dan Vogel’s Early Mormon Documents series. See ed. Dan Vogel, “7. Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838,” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998): 288–293, online at archive.org. 

    dxxxiii. EdDan Vogel, “7. Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838,” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998): 292, online at archive.org 

    dxxxiv. See George A. Smith, “Letter to Josiah Fleming, 29 March 1838,” Church History Catalog, accessed March 5, 2024, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org. See also ed. Dan Vogel, “7. Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838,” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998): 289 (Editorial Note), online at archive.org.  

    dxxxv. See Neal Rappleye, “Material Plates, Spiritual Vision: Martin Harris, Divine Materiality, and Seeing with ’Spiritual Eyes,’” in Steadfast in Defense of Faith: Essays in Honor of Daniel C. Peterson, ed. Shirley S. Ricks, Stephen D. Ricks, Louis C. Midgley (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation and Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2023): 276–277. 

    dxxxvi. See Neal Rappleye, “Material Plates, Spiritual Vision: Martin Harris, Divine Materiality, and Seeing with ’Spiritual Eyes,’” in Steadfast in Defense of Faith: Essays in Honor of Daniel C. Peterson, ed. Shirley S. Ricks, Stephen D. Ricks, Louis C. Midgley (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation and Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2023): 278–288. 

    dxxxvii. See the quote by David Whitmer as reported by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon WItnesses (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1981): 87. 

    dxxxviii.  Ed. Dan Vogel, “1. Martin Harris Interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828: [2. Letter, 31 August 1840],” in Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998): 270, online at archive.org.   

    dxxxix. See Neal Rappleye, “Material Plates, Spiritual Vision: Martin Harris, Divine Materiality, and Seeing with ’Spiritual Eyes,’” in Steadfast in Defense of Faith: Essays in Honor of Daniel C. Peterson, ed. Shirley S. Ricks, Stephen D. Ricks, Louis C. Midgley (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation and Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2023): 276–288. 

    dxl. See Miles Harvey, “One: In which we meet a man who isn’t there,” in The King of Confidence (New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2020): 2224. 

    dxli. See Daniel Peterson, “Many of Prophet’s revelations were shared experiences,” The Deseret News, February 24, 2011, online at deseret.com. 

    dxlii. See Brian C. Hales, “James Strang Comparison to Joseph Smith,” The CES Letter: A Closer Look, accessed March 6, 2024, online at debunking-cesletter.com. See also Doctrine and Covenants Central, “Why Were Three Witnesses Chosen to Testify of the Book of Mormon?” D&C KnoWhy #267, January 27, 2017, online at doctrineandcovenantscentral.org; “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845, Page [7]. Book 5,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 6, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    dxliii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “What is the ’sealed portion’ of the Book of Mormon, and will we ever know what’s in it?” New Era (October 2011), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dxliv. See “’Church History,’ 1 March 1842, Page 709,” in Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844, ed. Karen Lynn Davidson, David J. Whittaker, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Richard L. Jensen (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2012): 489–501, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    dxlv. See Miles Harvey, “Thirteen: In which many people feel trapped,” in The King of Confidence (New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2020): 189–190. 

    dxlvi. See “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses, The Book of Mormon, accessed March 6, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.orgCompare this testimony to the one recited in the CES Letter, also located in the front of The Book of The Law of the Lord: “Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses, from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us. We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures. And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.” 

    dxlvii. Smith’s dislike of writing is well-documented. See “Letter to William W. Phelps, 27 November 1832,” in Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Grant Underwood, William G. Hartley (Salt Lake City, UT: Cburch Historian’s Press, 2013): 315–321, online at josephsmithpapers.orgSee also Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saints’ Herald 26, no. 19 (October 1, 1879): 200, online at archive.org. For a list of professions Strang held before joining the Mormon Church, see Miles Harvey, “One: In which we meet a man who isn’t there,” in The King of Confidence (New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2020): 26–29. 

    dxlviii. See Chauncy Loomis, “Experience on Beaver Island with James J. Strang,” The Saints’ Herald, November 10, 1888, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org; and Sen. I. F. Scott, “James J. Strang in Voree,” The Saints’ Herald, December 29, 1888, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org. These accounts detail how the Voree Plates were created and buried, then later dug up by Strang; how Samuel Graham, the scribe, described helping make the plates that later became The Book of the Law of the Lord; how the fragments from crafting the plates were located in Strang’s home; how Strang supposedly asked George Adams to wear a long, white robe and appear on a high summit on Beaver Island, breaking bottles of phosphorus to appear to be glowing; and how Strang and John C. Bennett would turn down the lights and anoint the foreheads of the believers with oil mixed with phosphorus in a mock temple endowment so that they’d think the Holy Spirit was causing them to glow. 

    dxlix. See Zion’s Reveille 2, no. 3 (January 25, 1847): 12, online at archive.org: “The pseudos [anti-Strangites] at Kirtland have proclaimed David Whitmer as their prophet, seer, revelator, and translator.” 

    dl. See “John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847, Pages 93–94” in Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Histories, 1831–1847, ed. Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, David J. Whittaker (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2012): 2–110, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    dli. See H. Michael Marquardt, “Martin Harris: The Kirtland Years, 1831–1870,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (Fall, 2003): 19–25, online at dialoguejournal.com; Robin Scott Jensen, “Witness in England: Martin Harris and the Strangite Mission,” BYU Studies Quarterly 44, no. 3 (2005): 79–98, online at byustudies.byu.edu. 

    dlii. See Brian C. Hales, “Followers of Strang,” in The CES Letter: A Closer Look, accessed March 6, 2024, online at debunking-cesletter.com. 

    dliii. See “Smith, William B.,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 6, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    dliv. See “Opinions of the Smith Family,” The Voree Herald 1, no. 6 (June, 1846), online at latterdaytruth.org. 

    dlv. See “Testimony of Katharine Salisbury,” The Saints’ Herald, April 26, 1899, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org; Josephine Salisbury, Undated Letteraccessed March 6, 2024, online at debunking-cesletter.com. 

    dlvi. See “James Strang Movement,” FAIR, accessed March 6, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

The CES Letter’s Take on the Lack of Witness Authentication

“The closest thing we have in existence to an original document of the testimonies of the witnesses is a printer’s manuscript written by Oliver Cowdery. Every witness name except Oliver Cowdery on that document is not signed; they are written in Oliver’s own handwriting. Further, there is no testimony from any of the witnesses, with the exception of David Whitmer, directly attesting to the direct wording and claims of the manuscript or statements in the Book of Mormon.” 

The printer’s manuscript of The Book of Mormon is the only handwritten copy still fully extant. The original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House by Joseph Smith.dlvii More than 40 years later, Emma Smith’s second husband, Lewis Bidamon, was renovating the house and discovered the manuscript. It was damaged by water seepage and mold. Bidamon displayed the pages and sold or gave away many of the pages to visitors.dlviii Today, only around 28% of it is still intact, and many of those pages are badly damaged.dlix Because most of the original manuscript has not survived, the original Witness statements no longer exist. There are multiple accounts of David Whitmer saying that the Three Witnesses signed the original document, as well as an account saying that they were all present and requested Cowdery sign their names for them on the printer’s manuscript.dlx Additionally, there is an interview with Martin Harris in which he confirmed he signed his name on the statement for the Three Witnesses.dlxi John Whitmer also stated that he signed his name to the witness statement for the Eight Witnesses.dlxii  

It is incorrect to say that there is no testimony from any witness but David Whitmer directly attesting to the exact phrasing of the Witness Statements. Of the Three Witnesses, besides Whitmer, Harris testified repeatedly of different elements of the Witness Statement, including that he had seen the angel and the plates, heard the voice from heaven, and handled the plates.dlxiii Cowdery left at least two accounts that detailed being shown the plates by an angel and handling them with his hands, as described in the Witness Statement.dlxiv 

Of the Eight Witnesses, John Whitmer affirmed details of his statement in the same account mentioned above in which he also recounted signing his name, as well as in other accounts.dlxv Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith, Sr., all also reaffirmed their testimonies as written in the Witness Statements.dlxvi  

“While we have ‘testimonies’ from the witnesses recorded in later years through interviews and second eyewitness accounts and affidavits, many of the ‘testimonies’ given by some of the witnesses do not match the claims and wording of the preface statements in the Book of Mormon.” The CES Letter then lists several quotes from Harris, saying that he had hefted the plates repeatedly while they were in a box while covered with a cloth or handkerchief. “There is a difference between saying you ‘beheld and saw the plates and the engravings thereon’ and saying you ‘hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them’ or that the plates ‘were covered over with a cloth’ and that you ‘did not see them as [you] do that pencil-case, yet [you] saw them with the eye of faith’ or ‘with a spiritual eye.'” 

There are no firsthand statements from Harris denying seeing the uncovered gold plates with his physical eyes. The report from Burnett, which we addressed above, cannot be corroborated by either of the other two extant accounts of that meeting, and according to Burnett himself, Harris said that his statements were given under duress.dlxvii Harris’s statements about hefting the plates while they were covered with a cloth during his work as a scribe for Joseph Smith were often conflated by critics to mean that he had never seen them uncovered.dlxviii However, Harris’s scribal work for Smith took place a full year before the events described in the Witness Statement Harris affixed his name to.dlxix  

The second quote mentioned was the Clark account about seeing the plates with the eye of faith. As addressed earlier, Harris believed that being authorized by God to see the uncovered plates was the same as seeing them with the eye of faith.dlxx 

“When I was a missionary, my understanding and impression from looking at the testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses in the Book of Mormon was that the signatures and statements were legally binding documents in which the names represented signatures on the original document similar to those you would see on the original US Declaration of Independence. This is how I presented the testimonies to investigators. According to the above manuscript that Oliver took to the printer for the Book of Mormon, they were not signatures. Since there is no document or evidence of any document whatsoever with the actual signatures of all of the witnesses, the only real testimonies we have from the witnesses are later interviews given by them and eyewitness accounts/affidavits made by others, some of which are shown previously. From a legal perspective, the statements of the testimonies of the Three and Eight witnesses hold no credibility or weight in a court of law as there are a) no signatures of any of the witnesses except Oliver, b) no specific dates, c) no specific locations, and d) some of the witnesses made statements after the fact that contradict and cast doubt on the specific claims made in the statements contained in the preface of the Book of Mormon.” 

It is not entirely accurate to claim that the Witness Statements in The Book of Mormon would not be legally binding. Eyewitness testimony is still the primary source of evidence used in criminal trials. Each of the Witnesses in question all repeatedly affirmed their testimony as valid across many years, even on their deathbeds. None of them ever recanted those firsthand testimonies. We have one firsthand account from John Whitmer confirming that he signed his name to the original manuscript, one secondhand account saying Martin Harris claimed to have signed his name on the statement, and multiple secondhand accounts saying that David Whitmer confirmed the same thing.dlxxi Though the secondhand accounts would not be considered legal evidence, the firsthand account would. Eyewitness testimony from a deceased witness can be entered into the court record in certain circumstances, whereas the multiple secondhand statements suggesting that Harris claimed never to have seen the plates cannot as they would be considered hearsay. While not all evidence regarding the Book of Mormon Witnesses would be admissable in a court of law, there is enough evidence that we can evaluate their claims for ourselves.dlxxii 

However, Joseph Smith was likely not trying to create legally binding statements with the Witness testimonies. Since The Book of Mormon is a religious text, he was likely trying to satisfy the Law of Witnesses found in the scriptures.dlxxiii This scriptural law says that in the mouths of witnesses, the truth is established (Deut. 19:15, 2 Cor. 31:1, 1 Tim 5:19). The Witness Statements do satisfy that law. 

The CES Letter’s Examination of Witness Consistency and Reliability

“‘The witnesses never recanted or denied their testimonies.’ Neither did James Strang’s witnesses; even after they were excommunicated from the church and estranged from Strang. Neither did dozens of Joseph Smith’s neighbors and peers who swore and signed affidavits on Joseph’s and his family’s characters. Neither did many of the Shaker witnesses who signed affidavits that they saw an angel on the roof top holding the Sacred Roll and Book written by founder Ann Lee. Same goes for the numerous people over the centuries who claimed their entire lives to have seen the Virgin Mary and pointing to their experience as evidence that Catholicism is true. There are also numerous witnesses who have never recanted their sincere testimonies of seeing UFOs, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Abominable Snowman, Aliens, and so on. It simply doesn’t mean anything. People believe in false things their entire lives and never recant. Just because they never denied or recanted their testimonies does not follow that their experience and claims are authentic or that reality matches to what their perceived experience was.” 

The CES Letter is correct that some people believe untrue things. However, it is not entirely accurate to say that James Strang’s witnesses never recanted, as there are secondhand accounts suggesting that they had.dlxxiv If the CES Letter is going to accept as true secondhand accounts of critics claiming that Harris walked back his testimony, it also has to accept as true the secondhand accounts of critics claiming that Strang’s witnesses admitted to his plates being a hoax. Moreover, none of Strang’s witnesses continued testifying of his plates and his prophetic role after they left his church, unlike Smith’s witnesses.dlxxv Strang’s witnesses also never testified to seeing anything supernatural, again unlike Smith’s witnesses.dlxxvi  

Moreover, the Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book was not written by Ann Lee, but by Philemon Stewart. The book was written in 1843, and Lee died in 1784. This book was published during a period in Shaker history known as the Era of Manifestations, wherein multiple people claimed visionary experiences and revelations that they believed were being sent to them by Ann Lee.dlxxvii It was a confusing time and many Shakers did not know which were actual revelations and which were hallucinations.dlxxviii Many witnesses to seeing an angel later admitted they were deceived by false spirits, and the book was discredited and dishonored by the Shakers themselves.dlxxix This is not the case with the witnesses to the gold plates, who continued to testify of what they’d seen even after leaving Smith’s church. Additionally, The Book of Mormon still holds a prominent and respected position among Mormons. 

Regardless of the inaccuracies in this CES Letter statement, to determine whether or not we feel the witnesses to The Book of Mormon are trustworthy, we need to evaluate their claims for ourselves just as we would any other extraordinay claim.dlxxx  

The CES Letter then lists numerous problems it sees with the Witness statements: “The official statements published in the Book of Mormon are not dated, signed (we have no record with their signatures except for Oliver’s), nor is a specific location given for where the events occurred. These are not eleven legally sworn affidavits but rather simple statements pre-written by Joseph Smith with claims of having been signed by three men and another by eight.”  

As stated earlier, there is a firsthand statement from John Whitmer declaring that he signed the original manuscript, and there are multiple secondhand statements from David Whitmer stating the same.dlxxxi There are numerous first- and secondhand statements from the witnesses reaffirming the decriptions in the Witness Statements.dlxxxii The events took place in mid-June, 1829, though the exact date is unknown, in the woods near the Whitmer family home in Fayette, New York.dlxxxiii  

“All of the Book of Mormon witnesses, except Martin Harris, were related by blood or marriage either to the Smiths or Whitmers. Oliver Cowdery (married to Elizabeth Ann Whitmer and cousin to Joseph Smith), Hiram Page (married to Catherine Whitmer), and the five Whitmers were all related by marriage. Of course, Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith Sr. were Joseph’s brothers and father. Mark Twain made light of this obvious problem:’…I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.’—ROUGHING IT, P.113”  

Oliver Cowdery married Elizabeth Ann Whitmer three years after signing his name to the statement in The Book of Mormon, and he was Smith’s third cousin once removed. There is no evidence that either the Cowderys or the Smiths knew of the relation.dlxxxiv  

Aside from these caveats, yes, most of the Witnesses were related to either the Smiths or the Whitmers. It is reasonable that Smith would choose people who believed his, and who he knew and trusted from his family and friend group, to be his witnesses.   

“Within eight years, all of the Three Witnesses were excommunicated from the Church. This is what Joseph Smith said about them in 1838: ‘Such characters as…John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.’ This is what first counselor of the First Presidency and once close associate Sidney Rigdon had to say about Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer: ‘Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer…united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent…’ What does it say about the Witnesses and their characters if even the Prophet and his counselor in the First Presidency thought they were questionable and unsavory?” 

In Joseph Smith’s day, “mean” could be defined as “destitute of honor,” “contemptible or despicable,” and “worthy of little or no regard.”dlxxxv Any of those definitions could have been Smith’s intended meaning. This quote comes from a letter Smith wrote while imprisoned in Liberty Jail in deplorable conditions.dlxxxvi After Cowdery and Whitmer fled Caldwell County upon being threatened by the Danites, rumors began to spread about their ill-treatment at the hands of their former friends. This added to the tension already brewing in Missouri at the time, which eventually led to Smith’s imprisonment.dlxxxvii He blamed Cowdery and Whitmer for these events, which can be seen in the language used in the letter.  

The quote allegedly from Sidney Rigdon is taken from the Danite Manifesto.dlxxxviii The author of that letter is unknown though Sampson Avard, leader of the Missouri Danites, claimed it was Rigdon.dlxxxix This was not corroborated by any other account. There were rumors about Cowdery’s involvement with counterfeiters (it was one of the charges brought against him during his excommunication hearing), but this is something Cowdery denied for the rest of his life.dxc  

As for what this says about their character, that they continued to testify in support of the gold plates, The Book of Mormon, and of Smith’s role as a prophet during the translation of The Book of Mormon despite the ill feelings between them speaks highly of their integrity.  

”As mentioned in the above ‘Polygamy|Polyandry’ section, Joseph was able to influence and convince many of the 31 witnesses to lie and perjure in a sworn affidavit that Joseph was not a polygamist. Is it outside the realm of possibility that Joseph was also able to influence or manipulate the experiences of his own magical thinking, treasure digging family and friends as witnesses? Biased Mormon men who already believed in second sight and who already believed that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?” 

As we discussed in the Polygamy/Polyandry section, this is inaccurate. The affidavits posted in the Times and Seasons were about John C. Bennett and his corrupted form of plural marriage called “spiritual wifery,” not about Smith.dxci There is no evidence Smith requested the affidavits be written.dxcii They do not mention Smith’s name and a statement from one of the signatories confirms they were not about Smith or Smith’s version of plural marriage.dxciii The CES Letter presents no “direct” evidence that Smith convinced anyone to lie and perjure themselves, or that he manipulated anyone. 

“If the Prophet Joseph Smith could get duped with the Kinderhook Plates, thinking that the 19th century fake plates were a legitimate record of a “descendent of Ham,” how is having gullible men like Martin Harris handling the covered plates going to prove anything? 

Though Smith did initially believe the Kinderhook Plates were legitimate ancient records, it is unclear if he continued to believe so. He only kept the plates for a brief time, and after the initial attempt at translating them through traditional means, he never gave another public attempt.dxciv It is unknown if he realized at some point they were a hoax, or if he merely lost interest as he discovered he was unable to translate them. 

Regarding Martin Harris, as stated earlier, critics often conflated his words describing his time as Smith’s scribe with his testimony of later seeing the uncovered plates.dxcv Harris repeatedly confirmed throughout his life that he saw plates uncovered, displayed by an angel.dxcvi Rather than the gullible amn he is portrayed as, he was the most skeptical of the Three Witnesses, often testing Smith and insisting on confirmation from God before proceeding.dxcvii  

As for whether or not the testimony of the witnesses to The Book of Mormon “prove” anything, that is for individual readers to decide after weighing the evidence.dxcviii  

“James Strang’s claims and Voree Plates Witnesses are distinctive and more impressive compared to the Book of Mormon Witnesses: All of Strang’s witnesses were not related to one another through blood or marriage like the Book of Mormon Witnesses were. Some of the witnesses were not members of Strang’s church. The Voree Plates were displayed in a museum for both members and non-members to view and examine. Strang provided 4 witnesses who testified that on his instructions, they actually dug the plates up for Strang while he waited for them to do so. They confirmed that the ground looked previously undisturbed.”  

Using the criteria previously employed by the CES Letter when discussing Oliver Cowdery, it is not entirely accurate to say that none of Strang’s witnesses were related by blood or marriage. While the witnesses do not appear to be related to one another, Strang did marry one of Phineas Wright’s daughters four years after Wright was a witness for him.dxcix Since the CES Letter declared Cowdery related to the Whitmers by a marriage that occurred three years after he signed his witness statement, the same would hold true for Strang and the Wrights.  

It is not correct to say that some of Strang’s witnesses were not members of his church. All of the witnesses held leadership posititions in his church. Samuel Graham, Warren Post, Phineas Wright, Albert Hosmer, Ebenezer Page, and Jehiel Savage were Strangite Apostles.dc Samuel P. Bacon was a high priest in Strang’s church.dci Aaron Smith was a counselor in the High Priests’ Quorum, while Jirah B. Wheelan was a Voree Stake high councilor.dcii James M. Van Nostrand was the Elder’s Quorum President pro tempore, and Edward Whitcomb was the Teacher’s Quorum President in Strang’s church.dciii  

It is true that the Voree Plates were displayed in a museum for a time until they were misplaced or stolen. The Voree witnesses never attested to anything supernatural, and never saw the Urim and Thummim or the angel Strang claimed to have seen.dciv At least one of them also apparently confessed to helping Strang create the plates as a hoax.dcv It is up to the reader to determine whether or not they are more impressive than Smith’s witnesses, who held “a variety and complexity” that does not appear in Strang’s witnesses.dcvi 

“The Shakers felt that ‘Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption’ (Sacred Roll and Book, p.358). The Shakers had a sacred book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth. More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them. One woman told of eight different visions.” The CES Letter then repeats the testimony statement from the Sacred Roll and Book. “Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the Sacred Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of testimony from ‘Living Witnesses.’ The evidence seems to show that Martin Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. Clark Braden stated: ‘Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon’ (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p.173). Why should we believe the Book of Mormon Witnesses but not the Shakers witnesses? What are we to make of the reported Martin Harris comment that he had as much evidence for the Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon?” 

As discussed above, the Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book was published during the Shaker Era of Manifestations, in which multiple people claimed to receive revelations and visions that they believed were sent to them by Ann Lee.dcvii Many Shakers later admitted to not knowing which were actual revelations and which were hallucinations.dcviii Multiple witnesses to seeing the angel later admitted they were deceived by false spirits, and the book was discredited and dishonored by the Shakers themselves within 40 years of its publication.dcix  

Conversely, The Book of Mormon still holds a prominent, respected position among Mormons today, and the witnesses to the gold plates continued to testify of what they’d seen for the rest of their lives. Many of them reaffirmed those testimonies on their deathbeds.dcx 

Regarding Martin Harris, it is unknown whether he ever made the statement that he believed in “the Shaker book” as much as he did The Book of Mormon. Clark Braden was a famous debator who consistently tried to correct what he believed were religious errors, and cared more about winning through accusation and rumor than about delivering accurate historical facts.dcxi While Phineas Young did also write a letter alleging that Harris made a similar claim, the language is ambiguous enough that it is unclear whether Young heard Harris claim it or whether he heard others claim that Harris said it.dcxii 

The CES Letter's Temple and Freemasonry Criticisms

The CES Letter’s Investigation of Masonic Influences in Temple Ceremonies

“’Because of their Masonic characters the ceremonies of the temple are sacred and not for the public.’ — OCTOBER 15, 1911, MESSAGE FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY, 4:250” 

Though some may interpret the above quote to say that the temple endowment ceremony is sacred because it includes specific signs of Freemasonry, that is not accurate when looking at the correct quotation. In the book Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this quote is copied from an article in The Deseret News on November 4, 1911.  

However, The Deseret News originally took this quote from The Oakland Tribune. It was an article specifically written to explain Mormonism to those unfamiliar with the religion. When they copied the quote, there was a typo in the text. Originally, the phrase said, “Because of their Masonic character the ceremonies of the temple are sacred and not for the public.” The word “Masonic” is thus a descriptor meant to express the private nature of the ceremony, rather than to say that the temple endowment ceremony was Masonic in origin.dcxiii  

  • References

    dcxiii. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 156–157. 

The CES Letter’s Analysis of Joseph Smith’s Masonic Initiation and the Introduction of the Endowment

“Just seven weeks after Joseph’s March 1842 Masonic initiation, Joseph introduced the LDS endowment ceremony in May 1842.” 

This is an accurate statement. However, it is also accurate to say that many elements of the temple endowment ceremony, including mentions of ancient symbols and tokens, were described by Joseph Smith far earlier than 1842.dcxiv These include the all-seeing eye, the handclasp, “Holiness to the Lord,” and bee imagery.dcxv While some elements of the endowment ceremony structure were almost certainly influenced by what Smith saw in Freemasonry, the narrative of the endowment and its content appear to predate Smith’s initiation into the organization.dcxvi 

There are two elements to Mormon temple ordinances, what one Mormon and Mason has termed “the Message and the Messenger.”dcxvii This means that one part (the message) is the ordinance itself, which includes the covenants being made and the knowledge being shared, which includes the signs, symbols, and tokens. The other part (the messenger) is the ritual drama created to tell the narrative story and teach the principles and covenants in question. It could be compared to a gift that you receive from someone. There is the outer packaging, with the wrapping paper and bow, which is the messenger/ritual drama. Then there is the actual gift inside the outer packaging, which is the message/ordinance and covenants.  

This means that, while some elements of the vehicle for teaching the temple endowment seem to have been influenced by Freemasony, the content, covenants, and ordinances themselves were likely not. According to one Mormon scholar, “It requires a logical leap to bridge the evidentiary gap between similarity, which was obvious to those who knew both Masonry and the endowment, and dependence, which is assumed—not known. … The ritual is not the endowment of power itself. It may be that some ritual forms were adapted from Masonic traditions, but the endowment teaches a divine plan of creation, Fall, and redemption through Christ—promising those who covenant to keep God’s laws that they will gain power over the effects fo the Fall.”dcxviii 

  • References

    dcxiv. For example, the narrative story, clothing, and covenants, the sequence of blessings of the oath and covenant of the priesthood, and the priesthood keys and symbols, including keywords, names, signs, and tokens, were all described prior to 1842. See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Freemasonry and the Origins of the Modern Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): 159–237, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; K-Lynn Paul, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “’How Thankful We Should Be to Know the Truth’: Zebedee Coltrin’s Witness of the Heavenly Origins of Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Latter-day Saint Journal of Faith and Scholarship 21 (2016): 155–234, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; Brian C. Hales, “7 Weeks After,” The CES Letter: A Closer Look, accessed March 8, 2024, online at debunking-cesletter.com. 

    dcxv. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 171–178. 

    dcxvi. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 22–27; Scott Gordon, “Mormon Temples and Freemasonry,” 2017 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Freemasonry and the Origins of the Modern Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): 159–237, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; K-Lynn Paul, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “’How Thankful We Should Be to Know the Truth’: Zebedee Coltrin’s Witness of the Heavenly Origins of Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Latter-day Saint Journal of Faith and Scholarship 21 (2016): 155–234, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; Greg Kearney, “The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry,” 2005 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxvii. See Greg Kearney, “The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry,” 2005 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxviii. Steven C. Harper, “12. Freemasonry and the Latter-day Saint Temple Endowment Ceremony,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2016): 151–152, online at rsc.byu.edu. The removed portion of the quote in the body of the response continues, “Some people reason that Joseph Smith initiated men and women into the endowment ordinances after he was initiated into Freemasonry; therefore, the temple rituals derived from Masonry. One problem with this theory is that Freemasonry itself borrowed much of its ritual and ceremony from elements preserved since antiquity. There is ample similarity and difference not only between Freemasonry and LDS temple ordinances, but in many other ancient and more modern stories and rituals as well. Disentangling the complex relationships between them is not posible and should not be oversimplified. It is possible to discern differences in functions (however similar in form) of Masonic and LDS temple ordinances. Masonic rituals use aprons, door-knockings, and unusual handshakes to foster brotherhood. Bonds are made between men, not between people and God. LDS temple ordinances endow believers with power to regain the presence of God as they make and keep covenants with him.” 

True Masonry in Temple Teachings: The CES Letter’s Interpretation and Implications

“President Heber C. Kimball, a Mason himself and a member of the First Presidency for 21 years, made the following statement: ‘We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon, and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.'”  

Like many Masons of the time period, early Latter-day Saints believed the myth that Freemasonry dated back to Solomon’s temple.dcxix Though today that link cannot be proven, in the 19th Century it was a common belief.dcxx 

Several early Mormons also later made comments similar to Kimball’s, suggesting that the temple endowment ceremony was corrupted over the centuries by the Masons but that they still held some true elements of the endowment in their ceremonies.dcxxi The earliest known such statement, however, came in 1858, long after Smith joined the Freemasons.dcxxii  

  • References

    dcxix. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 28–29, 152–154; see also “Question: Where did 19th-Century Latter-day Saints believe that Freemasonry came from?” FAIR, accessed March 11, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxx. The origins of Freemasonry are unknown and can only be traced back to the 13th Century at this time. For further information, see Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 27, 29, 36, no. 1; see also Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances,” “A Life Lived in Crescendo”: Selected Punctuation Marks of Joseph Smith’s Final Years, The Interpreter Four, accessed March 11, 2024, online at youtube.com. 

    dcxxi. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 130–133; see also “Early Latter-day Saints’ views of Freemasonry,” FAIR, accessed March 11, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxxii. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 130. 

The CES Letter’s Take on Discrepancies Between Temple and Masonic Ceremonies

“If Masonry had the original Temple ceremony but became distorted over time, why doesn’t the LDS ceremony more closely resemble an earlier form of Masonry, which would be more correct rather than the exact version that Joseph Smith was exposed to in his March 1842 Nauvoo, Illinois initiation?” 

According to Kimball’s above quote, the Freemasonry of the 19th Century was derived from the apostasy already underway in the days of David and Solomon. He appears to be suggesting that the Masonic rituals were a corrupted form of the endowment ceremony right from the start, rather than that they had the original ceremony which was then corrupted later.  

It should also be noted that Freemasonry is not a religion, but a secular organization. Their ceremonies and rituals are not geared toward religious exaltation the way that the Mormon temple endowment is. However, some Masonic rituals, signs, tokens, and symbols do have roots in ancient Christianity.dcxxiii 

The CES Letter’s Questioning of Connections to Solomon’s Temple

“Freemasonry has zero links to Solomon’s Temple. Although more a Church folklore, with origins from comments made by early Mormon Masons such as Heber C. Kimball, than being Church doctrine, it’s a myth that the endowment ceremony has its origins from Solomon’s Temple or that Freemasonry passed down parts of the endowment over the centuries from Solomon’s Temple. Solomon’s Temple was all about animal sacrifice. Freemasonry has its origins to stone tradesmen in medieval Europe – not in 950 BC Jerusalem.” The CES Letter then quotes several comments from a FAIR Conference presentation and a FAIR blog post from the same presenter, Greg Kearney, who is both a Mormon and a Freemason: “Unfortunately, there is no historical evidence to support a continuous functioning line from Solomon’s Temple to the present. We know what went on in Solomon’s Temple; it’s the ritualistic slaughter of animals”; “Masonry, while claiming a root in antiquity, can only be reliably traced to medieval stone tradesmen”; “It is clear that Freemasonry and its traditions played a role in the development of the endowment ritual….” The letter continues, “If there’s no connection to Solomon’s Temple, what’s so divine about a man-made medieval European secret fraternity and its rituals?” 

While these quotes are accurate to the speaker in question, they are removed from their context which changes their meaning somewhat.dcxxiv Neither Kearney nor FAIR agreed with the CES Letter’s framing of this issue.  

The CES Letter is correct when it points out that the ideas expressed by Kimball and other early Mormons are not Church doctrine, but merely the opinion of the speakers. However, the CES Letter goes beyond the mark when it claims that Freemasonry has zero links to Solomon’s Temple, that the endowment ceremony has its origins in Solomon’s Temple, or that Freemasonry passed down elements of the endowment from the days of Solomon’s Temple.  

As explained above, Freemasonry’s ties to the days of Solomon cannot be proven at this time, but neither can they be definitively shown to be false. dcxxv While Freemasonry can currently only be traced back to the 13th Century, additional evidence may be uncovered in the future to change that. There are certainly elements of the temple endowment that far predate Freemasonry, and which connect to ancient temple worship.dcxxvi  

With its last question, the CES Letter is constructing a straw-man argument. No Mormon Church leader ever said that Freemasonry was divine, nor did they say that there was no connection with either Freemasonry or the temple endowment to ancient temple ceremonies, including those in Solomon’s Temple. The quotes in question only say that no direct links can be found today between Freemasonry and stonemasons who worked on Solomon’s Temple. There are links between the temple endowment, Freemasonry’s symbols and tokens, and ancient temple worship.dcxxvii  

  • References

    dcxxiv. For example, in the third quote Kearney is addressing a list of supposed similarities between Freemasonry and the LDS temple endowment given by noted critic of the Mormon Church, Mike Norton. The full paragraph containing this quote states, “To sum up, Mr. Norton has produced a list but no context for the list. It is clear that Freemasonry and its traditions played a role in the development of the endowment ritual but not the degree that Mr. Norton would like to suggest. Further he also brings up only similarities not the differences between the two. For example the central story in the endowment is the allegory of Adam and Eve. In Masonry it is the story of the master builder of Solomon’s temple Hiram Abiff. Whole vast sections of the Masonic ritual are not and have never been found in the temple endowment. The simple fact is that no one ever received their endowment in a Masonic lodge and no one has ever been made a Mason in an LDS temple. As a LDS Freemason I find the similarities reassuring rather than disturbing.” He was rebutting Norton’s critique, not agreeing with it. For more information, see Greg Kearney, “Similarities between Masonic and Mormon temple ritual,” FAIR Ask the Apologist presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxxv. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 27, 29, 36, no. 1; see also Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances,” “A Life Lived in Crescendo”: Selected Punctuation Marks of Joseph Smith’s Final Years, The Interpreter Four, accessed March 11, 2024, online at youtube.com. 

    dcxxvi. See Scott Gordon, “Mormon Temples and Freemasonry,” 2017 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Freemasonry and the Origins of the Modern Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): 159–237, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; K-Lynn Paul, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “’How Thankful We Should Be to Know the Truth’: Zebedee Coltrin’s Witness of the Heavenly Origins of Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Latter-day Saint Journal of Faith and Scholarship 21 (2016): 155–234, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; Greg Kearney, “The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry,” 2005 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “What Did Joseph Smith Know about Temple Ordinances by 1836?” 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Conference, October 25, 2014, online at interpreterfoundation.org. 

    dcxxvii. See Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009): 22–27; Scott Gordon, “Mormon Temples and Freemasonry,” 2017 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Freemasonry and the Origins of the Modern Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): 159–237, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; K-Lynn Paul, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “’How Thankful We Should Be to Know the Truth’: Zebedee Coltrin’s Witness of the Heavenly Origins of Temple Ordinances,” The Interpreter: A Latter-day Saint Journal of Faith and Scholarship 21 (2016): 155–234, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org; Greg Kearney, “The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry,” 2005 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “What Did Joseph Smith Know about Temple Ordinances by 1836?” 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Conference, October 25, 2014, online at interpreterfoundation.org. 

The CES Letter’s Implications of Pagan Masonic Rituals in the Temple

“Why did the Church remove the blood oath penalties and the 5 Points of Fellowship at the veil from the endowment ceremony in 1990? Both of these were 100% Masonic rituals. What does this say about the Temple and the endowment ceremony if 100% pagan Masonic rituals were in it from its inception? What does it say about the Church if it removed something that Joseph Smith said he restored and which would never again be taken away from the earth?”  

As we outlined above, there is a difference between the temple endowment ordinance (the message/gift) and the ritual drama designed to help teach the covenants and ordinances to the members (the messenger/wrapping paper).dcxxviii Though elements of the ritual drama have shifted over time as society and culture have changed, the covenants, signs, symbols, and tokens have not changed. When this ordinance was first instituted in Nauvoo, the endowment ceremony lasted as long as six hours.dcxxix It has undergone multiple alterations and edits since that time.dcxxx The ordinance itself, however, has remained the same. 

The ritual drama of Freemasonry is not pagan, but secular. Freemasonry is not a religious organization, though as mentioned above, elements of the rituals can certainly be traced back to ancient Christianity.dcxxxi Though Joseph Smith may have repurposed portions of Masonic ritual drama as a teaching aid to help explain the covenants and ordinances to the Mormons, the ceremony teaching the ordinance is not the ordinance itself.dcxxxii Those elements of the actual ordinance that are like those in Freemasonry existed before the time for when Freemasonry can reliably be traced.dcxxxiii  

While the temple endowment has been updated over time, as stated, the elements that Joseph Smith claimed to restore from antiquity were not among the things changed. 

Secret Tokens and Signs To Access Heaven: The CES Letter’s Examination

Is God really going to require individuals to know secret tokens, handshakes, and signs to get into heaven? What is the purpose of them? Doesn’t Heavenly Father know our names and know us personally? Indeed, aren’t the very hairs on our heads numbered? And couldn’t those who have left the Church and still know of the secret tokens, handshakes, and signs (or those who have watched the endowment ceremony on YouTube) benefit from that knowledge? 

While Mormons do believe that God knows us personally, including our names and the number of hairs on our heads, the purpose of temple covenants is not to introduce ourselves to God in the next life. Brigham Young taught that the signs, symbols, and tokens of the temple enable us to return to the Lord’s presence and gain eternal life.dcxxxiv Mormons believe that temple covenants teach us “who we are and what God expects of us.”dcxxxv Therefore, for Mormons the purpose and function of the signs, symbols, and tokens of the temple is to show God that we know that we are His children, that we will keep our covenants, and that we will obey His commandments. 

Because the temple is full of symbolism and allegory, it is unclear whether the requirement of those signs, symbols, and tokens is literal or symbolic. However, Mormons believe that during the 1,000 years of peace on Earth after Christ’s Second Coming, proxy temple ordinances will be performed for every person who has ever lived. This means that, under Mormon theology, everyone will know the signs, symbols, and tokens if necessary.dcxxxvi  

While those who do not make or keep those temple covenants may still know how to pass into God’s presence by using those sign and tokens, Mormon scripture does discuss what happens to those who perform temple ordinances without authorization from God (Abraham 1:21, 24, 27).dcxxxvii Under Mormon theology, knowing them is not enough. Being able to present yourself as a covenant-keeper is also a necessary part of the equation (D&C 82:10, D&C 130:21, PS 127:1).dcxxxviii 

  • References

    dcxxxiv. See Brigham Young, “Necessity of Building Temples—The Endowment,” in The Journal of Discourses 2, no. 6, ed. G. D. Watt (Liverpool, UK: F. D. Richards, 1855): 31, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. See also Jasmin Gimenez Rappleye, “Tokens/Symbols in the Latter-day Saint Temple Endowment,” Temple Light blog, February 22, 2022, online at templeendowment.wordpress.com. 

    dcxxxv. See Russell M. Nelson, “Covenants,” Ensign (November 2011), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcxxxvi. See Jim Bennett, “Temples and Freemasonry Concerns & Questions,” A CES Letter Reply: Faithful Anwers For Those Who Doubt (Sandy, UT: Self-published, online, 2018), online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org. 

    dcxxxvii. For a more detailed response, see John S. Thompson, “’Being of that Lineage’: Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham,” The Interpreter: A Latter-day Saint Journal of Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 97–146, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org. 

    dcxxxviii. See Russell M. Nelson, “Covenants,” Ensign (November 2011), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Boyd K. Packer, “Covenants,” Ensign (April 1987), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Ensign Staff, “Understanding Our Covenants,” Ensign (July 2012), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. See also Brigham Young, “Necessity of Building Temples—The Endowment,” in The Journal of Discourses 2, no. 6, ed. G. D. Watt (Liverpool, UK: F. D. Richards, 1855): 29–33, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. This talk goes into detail about how the Lord cannot dwell in unclean houses, and that includes the Spirit of God dwelling in unclean human vessels. Under Mormon theology, if a person is not morally clean and keeping their covenants, they will not be able to enter the presence of God regardless of knowing the signs and tokens. 

Temple Sealings and Family Separations According to the CES Letter

“Does the eternal salvation, eternal happiness, and eternal families really depend on Masonic rituals in multi-million dollar castles? Is God really going to separate good couples and their children who love one another and who want to be together in the next life because they object to uncomfortable and strange Masonic Temple rituals and a polygamous heaven?” The CES Letter then shows an image of the Five Points of Fellowship, a Freemason symbolic gesture, and gives quotes showing that this was one element of a former Mormon temple endowment ceremony. 

As explained earlier, the vehicle used for teaching the symbolism and meaning behind covenants and ordinances is not the covenant or ordinance itself.dcxxxix Some elements of the ritual drama Joseph Smith instituted to help teach Mormons about the covenants and ordinance of the temple endowment are likely repurposed portions of Masonic ritual.dcxl However, this ritual drama is not salvific in the Mormon faith, and Freemasons do not use this ritual for that purpose, either. For Mormons, it is simply a teaching method. The covenants and ordinance of the endowment are what they believe can lead to salvation, when used in conjunction with the Atonement of Jesus Christ.dcxli Mormons also consider temples to be Houses of God, not castles.dcxlii  

Traditional Christian belief is that in heaven, there will be no marriage or families as we know them due to their interpretation of Matthew 22:30.dcxliii This is why many Western traditional marriage vows end at death. In Mormon belief, however, whatever is bound—or sealed—on Earth will be bound/sealed in heaven (Matt. 18:18). There is a sealing ordinance performed in Mormon temples for this specific purpose.dcxliv This ordinance allows couples and families who are sealed here on Earth to remain a family for eternity if they are faithful to the covenants they made during the ordinance.dcxlv This is another reason why proxy ordinances are performed for those who are deceased, so that they will have the opportunity to be with their families in the next life. If someone does not accept this belief and does not wish to be sealed, they are welcome to refuse the ordinance. But if they do refuse the ordinance, just as in traditional Christian thought, their marriage and family relationships will not continue past the point of death. 

In Freemasonry, the Five Points of Fellowship is a special type of embrace in which certain points of the body, such as the knees of the participants, touch. This is meant to symbolize brotherhood and fraternity.dcxlvi The embrace predates Freemasonry and can be found in some ancient Mediterranean religions.dcxlvii When Joseph Smith introduced the temple endowment, this was one element that was repurposed for use in the ritual drama that accompanied the ordinance. Over time, that element was removed because other elements of the endowment ordinance taught the same principle, and it was deemed to be extraneous.dcxlviii The ritual drama of the temple endowment has changed many times over the years, though the ordinance itself, and the covenants made during the ordinance, have not. 

For Mormons, the ordinances and covenants of the temple are considered the most sacred acts a person can participate in during this lifetime.dcxlix They hold deep meaning and symbolism for members of their church and are the culmination of all Mormon doctrine.dcl It is considered deeply offensive for many Mormons when these things are mocked the way they are in the CES Letter paragraph above.

  • References

    dcxxxix. See Greg Kearney, “The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry,” 2005 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxl. See Scott Gordon, “Mormon Temples and Freemasonry,” 2017 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Greg Kearney, “Similarities between Masonic and Mormon temple ritual,” FAIR Ask the Apologist presentation, accessed March 12, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxli. See Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Ordinances and Covenants,” Ensign (August 2001), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcxlii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Temples,” Topics and Questions, accessed March 13, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcxliii. See Glory Dy, “Will Marriage Exist in Heaven?” Christianity.com, August 15, 2023, online at christianity.com. 

    dcxliv. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Sealing,” Church History Topics, accessed March 13, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcxlv. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “About Temple Sealings,” Temples, accessed March 13, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcxlvi. See Carl H. Claudy, “The Five Points of Fellowship,” The Square Magazine, accessed March 13, 2024, online at thesquaremagazine.com. 

    dcxlvii. See Stephen D. Ricks, “The Sacred Embrace and the Sacred Handclasp in Ancient Mediterranean Religions,” in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of the Expound Symposium 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, John S. Thompson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014): 159–170, reprinted in The Interpreter: A Latter-day Saint Journal of Faith and Scholarship 37 (2020): 319–330, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org. 

    dcxlviii. See Mormonr, “Changes to the Temple Endowment,” B. H. Roberts Foundation, accessed March 13, 2024, online at mormonr.org. 

    dcxlix. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Temples,” Newsroom Topic, accessed March 13, 2024, online at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

The CES Letter's Science Criticisms

The CES Letter’s Take on Biblical Contradictions and Scientific Claims

The CES Letter begins this section by listing a quote from Henry Eyring, father of Mormon Apostle Henry B. Eyring, saying that the Gospel embraces all truth so there are no contradictions between science and faith. It then quotes the Bible Dictionary, a reference guide in Mormon scriptures, saying that there was no death on earth before the Fall of Adam, and that Adam lived at approximately 4000 BC. It then quotes National Geographic saying that more than 90% of all organisms ever to exist on Earth are extinct. It continues, “The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against it, is willful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.” 

 The Bible Dictionary is a reference resource included in Bibles published by the LDS Church, as well as on their website. However, the CES Letter’s attempt to use it as an official statement of Mormon doctrine is not a correct use of the resource. According to the Bible Dictionary’s own introduction, it is not an official statement of Mormon Church doctrine or an endorsement of the historical or cultural views contained inside. It is also subject to change as new information comes to light and is compiled from the work of Bible scholars who are not necessarily LDS themselves.dcli  

 However, the second quote ostensibly from the Bible Dictionary is not from that resource, but from another reference called the Bible Chronology in the Appendix. These dates were taken largely from the work of Archbishop Ussher (1581–1656), who was not always correct, and from monuments and state records.dclii  

 Because Mormons believe that God set and obeys the laws of the universe (D&C 88:42–43), many members of their church do not see a discrepancy between religion and science.dcliii As with any religion, the truth claims of the Mormon Church cannot be definitively proven or disproven at this time. To assert that some of its claims can be scientifically proven or disproven is not accurate, as we will discuss in the following subsections.

The CES Letter’s Claims on Death Before Adam and Eve?

“2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23-24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish, dinosaurs, etc.) on this earth until the “Fall of Adam,” which according to D&C 77:6-7 occurred about 7,000 years ago. It is scientifically established that there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. How does the Church reconcile this? How do we explain the massive fossil evidence showing not only animal deaths but also the extinctions of over a dozen different Hominid species over the span of 250,000 years prior to Adam?” 

The summary the CES Letter gives for the three scriptures mentioned is not correct. 2 Nephi 2:22 says, “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.” Because the scriptures—particularly the Old Testament—are filled with symbolism and allegory, it is sometimes difficult to know what should be read literally. However, this verse discusses the state of things inside the Garden of Eden. Whether that was a real location or an allegorical one, its condition was one outside of time, in which the creatures inhabiting it would have remained in the same state forever if Adam and Eve had not transgressed. 

 Alma 12:23–24 continues in the same vein, again discussing the timeless state of the Garden of Eden: “And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die. And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.” Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, temporal death was introduced to the world, and this life became a probationary time to prepare for the next life. Again, whether that is literal or allegorical has not been clarified by the Mormon Church.  

 D&C 77:6–7 discusses the temporal age of the Earth: “Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals? A. We are to understand that it contained the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed? A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.” This scripture states that the temporal age of the Earth is 7,000 years. It does not define what the Earth’s “temporal existence” is, other than to say it is a “continuance.” While that is likely the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve, it is not stated clearly as such, and again, it is not known whether this is a literal time span from a literal event, or whether it was symbolic. The number 7 in the scriptures could be a literal number, but also often denotes completeness or perfection.dcliv The number 1,000 can also be a literal number, but also often denotes a large, undefined quantity.dclv It could be a literal 7,000 years, or it could mean seven periods of an indefinite quantity of years, or periods of completeness, dispensations, or the entire existence of mankind.  

 While Mormon theology does teach that Adam and Eve were real people, it is not clear how much of their story as told in the scriptures is literal and how much is allegorical.dclvi The questions posed by the CES Letter in this subsection start from a bad premise. Because the Mormon Church takes no stance on evolution, and because the scriptures in question do not teach that there was no death of any kind on Earth for any creature before 7,000 years ago, there is nothing for the Mormon Church to reconcile.dclvii 

Evolution, Human Existence, and Adam and Eve According to the CES Letter

“If Adam and Eve are the first humans, how do we explain the dozen or so other Hominid species who lived and died 35,000 – 2.4 million years before Adam? When did those guys stop being human?” 

 The Mormon Church takes no stand on evolution, other Hominid species, or whether God has a plan for them as well as for modern humans.dclviii The Mormon Church does teach that Adam and Eve were real people (D&C 128:20–21).dclix However, whether other species resembling humans lived before or after Adam and Eve, whether Adam and Eve had ancestors of their own, whether they were the first modern human beings, or whether they were two individuals meant to be the symbolic first parents of the human race is unknown.  

 This is a question with which every Bible-believing religion must grapple. One noted LDS scholar pointed out, though, that “Latter-day Saints are the only Bible-oriented people who have always been taught that things were happening long, long before Adam appeared on the scene.”dclx Because Mormons do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, the idea of life on Earth before Adam and Eve is not outside of their theology. 

The CES Letter’s Explanation for Present Neanderthal DNA

“Genetic science and testing has advanced significantly the past few decades. I was surprised to learn from results of my own genetic test that 1.6% of my DNA is Neanderthal. How does this fact fit with Mormon theology and doctrine that I am a literal descendant of a literal Adam and Eve from about 7,000 years ago? Where do the Neanderthals fit in? How do I have pre-Adamic Neanderthal DNA and Neanderthal blood circulating my veins when this species died off about 33,000 years before Adam and Eve?” 

 There is no official Mormon theology or doctrine on Neanderthals. As stated above, while the Mormon Church teaches that all modern humans are descendants of a literal Adam and Eve, it is unknown what life was on Earth before them.  

 One Mormon Apostle stated, “Adam dwelt as a spiritual being with his Father in heaven. He was commissioned to initiate the work connected with the plan of salvation on earth. He was brought to earth, after having had part in creating it, and was given a body made from ‘the dust of the ground.’ His helpmeet Eve likewise descended from spiritual spheres, to assist in the great work assigned them. How all this was accomplished is not known. The mystery of the ‘creation’ of Adam and Eve has not yet been revealed. But we do know, and this is the present answer to the pre-Adamite discussion, that we and the whole human race are descendants of Adam and Eve. Our earthly genealogies are traced back to these our first parents, and stop there.”dclxi  

 It is mathematically possible for everyone alive today to have a common ancestor, or set of ancestors, within the past few thousand years.dclxii Whether our human ancestry begins with Adam and Eve or continues back through ancestors prior to them is not answered in Mormon doctrine.dclxiii 

  • References

    dclxi. John A. Widtsoe, “Were There Pre-Adamites?” Improvement Era 51, no. 5 (May 1948): 305, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org. 

    dclxii. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, Joseph T. Chang, “Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans,” Nature 431 (September 30, 2004): 562–566, online at stat.yale.edu. 

    dclxiii. Regarding unanswered questions in Mormon theology, Apostle James E. Talmage once said, “When I see how often the theories and conceptions of men have gone astray, have fallen short of the truth, yea, have even contradicted the truth directly, I am thankful in my heart that we have an iron rod to which we can cling—the rod of certainty, the rod of revealed truth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes all truth, but it distinguishes most carefully between fact and fancy, between truth and theory, between premises and deductions; and it is willing to leave some questions in abeyance until the Lord in his wisdom shall see fit to speak more plainly.” James E. Talmage, “Third Day: A fulfilment of prophecy—The sure word of revelation compared with the deductions of men—Let God be true though men be liars—The coming forth of the Lost Tribes of Israel,” in Eighty-Seventh Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT: The Desert News, 1916): 75, online at archive.org. 

The CES Letter’s Account Science’s Discredited Claims in Mormonism

“Other events/claims that science has discredited: Tower of Babel (a staple story of the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon); Global flood (4,500 years ago); Noah’s Ark (Humans and animals having their origins from Noah’s family and the animals contained in the ark 4,500 years ago. It is scientifically impossible, for example, for the bear to have evolved into several species [Sun Bear, Polar Bear, Grizzly Bear, etc.] from common ancestors from Noah’s time just a few thousand years ago. There are a host of other impossibilities associated with Noah’s Ark story claims.)” 

 While it is true that the entire world was not speaking one language in the days of the Tower of Babel, large temple-towers called ziggurats were built all over Mesopotamia between 2200–500 BCE, some of which still stand today.dclxiv There are many ways to interpret the story of the Tower of Babel, including that it was a localized event wherein the languages of the local people were changed, or that is allegorical.dclxv Because Babylon was thought to be a great source of culture and knowledge during that era, Hebrew wordplay could be suggesting that, because they rejected God, it was actually a source of confusion and apostasy.dclxvi The exact interpretation of the Tower of Babel story is not currently clear, and the Mormon Church takes no official stance on it beyond what is shown in the scriptures.  

 There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the Great Flood was global. Ancient Hebrews, like many Near Eastern cultures of the time, did not believe in a global earth.dclxvii Additionally, as this was in the days before technology to travel long overland distances was created, it was common for a person to only travel a few hundred miles in any direction during their lifetime, if that. A local, catastrophic flood would have seemed to the ancient peoples living in the area as if it covered the entire world.dclxviii It may also have been a purely allegorical event.dclxix While it is true that there is no scientific evidence of a global flood 4,500 years ago, that is only one interpretation of the Bible that is not backed up by what the ancient Israelites believed about the world. Mormon Church leaders do tend to discuss the Great Flood as a global flood because that is what the scriptures teach and no revelation has been given to the contrary, but they also leave room for interpretation. 

 It is obviously impossible for Noah to have traveled the world, gathered up two of every single creature that existed, and put them all on a single boat. The Mormon Church does not dispute this. Again, there are alternate explanations for the story of Noah’s Ark. It may have been a local flood and Noah may have saved some of his own herds. It may have been an allegory. It may have been something else entirely. While Mormon doctrine teaches that Noah was a real figure who really lived (D&C 128: 20–21), that does not mean the details of this story are accurate.dclxx  

 Each of these subjects are ones that all Bible-believing people must address. They are not specific to Mormonism. These stories were all thousands of years old before they were ever written down, passed down orally from generation to generation. They are all open to interpretation, and the Mormon Church takes no hard stance on any of them other than to say that the figures involved were real people who lived on this earth. The exact details of their stories are unknown. It is also unknown whether their stories should be taken literally, allegorically, or as stories that have become corrupted over time to their current state when they were originally very different.  

  • References

    dclxiv. See the Editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica, “Ziggurat,” Britannica.com, accessed March 14, 2024, online at britannica.com. See also eds. John H. Walton, Craig S. Keener, NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019): 29, which states, “One single architectural feature dominated the landscape of early Mesopotamian cities: towers known as ziggurats. … [T]he city was, in effect, a temple complex. Throughout Mesopotamian literature, almost every occurrence of the expression describing a building “with its head in the heavens” refers to a temple with a ziggurat.” 

    dclxv. See Lee L. Donaldson, V. Dan Rogers, David Rolph Seely, “Is there additional background information on the tower of Babel?” Ensign 24, no. 2 (February 1994): 60–61, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org.

    dclxvi. See Ben Spackman, “Implicit Contexts in the Scriptures, but especially Genesis,” Ben Spackman blog, February 1, 2022, online at benspackman.com: “It’s a word play, also quite common in the Old Testament, but virtually impossible to indicate in translation. … Typically, wordplay in translation has to be pointed out in notes, like [Robert] Alter’s. He skillfully translates Genesis 11:6-9 like this to bring it out. ‘…Come, let us go down to baffle their language. … Therefore it is called Babel, for the Lord made the language of all the earth babble.’ He explains in his literary notes, ‘The Hebrew balal, ‘to mix or confuse,’ represented in this translation by baffle and babble is a polemic pun on the Akkadian ‘Babel…’’ That is, at the late time Genesis 11 was written, Babel/Babylon was thought to be a great source and center of culture, knowledge, and science. But Genesis 11 cleverly portrays it instead as a source of hubris, confusion, and apostasy.”

    dclxvii. The ancient viewed the earth as flat, being held up by pillars, and with a dome overhead. This dome, or firmament, was held up by the mountains, and it kept the cosmic waters of the ocean of heaven at bay. It also helped divide the cosmic waters above and below the earth. When the Great Flood came, it was due to a window in the dome allowing those cosmic waters to fall inside. For further details, see N. F. Gier, “Chapter 13: The Three-Story Universe,” in God, Reason, and the Evangelicals: The Case Against Evangelical Rationalism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987): 281–295, online at archive.org.

    dclxviii. See John A. Widtsoe as cited by Morris S. Petersen, “Earth,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992): 432, online at contentdm.lib.byu.edu.

    dclxix. See Ben Spackman, “Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6- Moses 8:19-30; Genesis 6:5-22; 7:1-10,” Ben Spackman blog, February 9, 2018, online at benspackman.com.

    dclxx. For teachings about Noah being a real person, see Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Chapter 9: Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration,” in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: John Taylor, accessed March 14, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Joseph B. Romney, “Noah, The Great Preacher of Righteousness,” Ensign (February 1998), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. For the idea that Noah may have existed but that his story may have been different in reality, see “The Flood,” FAIR, accessed March 14, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

Other CES Letter Criticisms

The Necessity and Legitimacy of Foundation Truths Based on the CES Letter

The CES Letter begins this section by quoting LDS historian Richard Bushman, saying that the dominant historical narrative can’t be sustained because it isn’t true. The CES Letter then states, “These concerns are secondary to all of the above. These concerns do not matter if the foundational truth claims (Book of Mormon, First Vision, Prophets, Book of Abraham, Witnesses, Priesthood, Temples, etc.) are not true.” 

 Richard Bushman made this comment in an off-the-cuff interview, where it was removed from its context and passed around as if he was saying the Mormon Church was lying about its history. However, that was not his intended meaning, and he clarified his words repeatedly in the aftermath of the controversy.dclxxi According to Bushman, he meant that when new information is discovered, the traditional account needs to be modified to accommodate that information. He also asserted the Mormon Church is doing that already by publishing foundational documents in the Joseph Smith Papers project and taking other steps toward transparency.  

 The veracity of the Mormon Church’s foundational truth claims has long been a source of debate. The CES Letter is correct when it says that those claims should be examined and weighed before focusing on less important points, such as what Richard Bushman meant by his comments during an interview. However, since the CES Letter addresses those comments by Bushman, his clarifications should also be addressed. 

  • References

    dclxxi. See Daniel C. Peterson, “Richard Bushman and the Fundamental Claims of Mormonism,” Sic et Non blog, July 16, 2016, online at patheos.com; Stephen O. Smoot, “What Does Richard Bushman Believe About the Book of Mormon?” Ploni Almoni: A Latter-day Saint Blog, July 15, 2020, online at plonialmonimormon.com; John Dehlin, “Richard Bushman Reaffirms his Testimony of ’Angels, Plates, Translations, Revelations,’” Mormon Stories, July 19, 2016, online at mormonstories.org. 

The CES Letter’s Investigation Into Mormon Historical Dishonesty and Censorship

“Adding to the above deceptions and dishonesty over history (rock in hat translation, polygamy | polyandry, multiple first vision accounts, etc.), the following bother me.” The CES Letter then quotes the chapter heading for Official Declaration 2 from the Doctrine and Covenants, saying that Church records offer no clear insights into the Priesthood restriction on Black members of African descent. It is followed by a 1949 First Presidency statement about the Priesthood restriction. “Along with the above First Presidency statement, there are many other statements and explanations made by prophets and apostles clearly ‘justifying’ the Church’s racism. So, the 2013 edition Official Declaration 2 Header in the scriptures is not only misleading, it’s dishonest. We do have records – including from the First Presidency itself – with very clear insights on the origins of the ban on the blacks.”  

 It is not accurate to say that the Mormon Church was deceptive and dishonest about its history when that has not been proven. Regarding Joseph Smith’s use of his personal seer stone during the Book of Mormon translation, for example, some prominent Mormon Church leaders did not believe the accounts featuring that stone. Though the information was being published by historians, Church leaders did not pass along the information to the membership using official Mormon Church channels because they did not believe it was accurate information.dclxxii When additional accounts were located, showing just how prevalent the narrative truly was, the entirety of the evidence was reassessed, and the historical account was modified to accommodate the new information.dclxxiii 

 Official Declaration 2 is a section of the Doctrine and Covenants containing the revelation from 1978 that opened the Mormon Priesthood to all worthy adult males, regardless of race or lineage.dclxxiv The exact origins of the Priesthood restriction for black males of African descent are unknown.dclxxv Brigham Young, the leader of the Mormon Church at the time the restriction was enacted, implied that it came from God.dclxxvi However, Young believed that all knowledge and inspiration he received was from God, whether taught to him by another person or through actual revelation.dclxxvii This makes it difficult to ascertain 150 years later what was a claimed revelation from God and what was not. Official Mormon Church records do not record any such revelation, but the historical record is missing other important documents as well. While a case could be made that the restriction came about because Young and other early Church leaders were racist, this cannot be definitively proven. Despite the CES Letter’s claim to the contrary, the historical record is not clear on the origins of the Priesthood restriction. 

 The statement from the First Presidency in 1949 is not an official, public statement and does not carry the weight of one. It was standardized language that was often sent in private letters to various individuals who inquired about the Priesthood restriction.dclxxviii The letter contained the beliefs of the 1949 First Presidency as to how and why the restriction was put into place, based on oral tradition and the recorded memories of those who were alive at the time the restriction was enacted.dclxxix In the 64 years between 1949 and 2013, considerable research on this topic was conducted and new information about the history of the restriction came to light.dclxxx While the Mormon Church presidency in 1949 believed that the restriction was indisputably a revelation from God, the presidency of 2013 knew that this could not be proven by the historical record. It is not misleading or dishonest for the Mormon Church’s presidency to share information that they believed was true, only to correct the matter when they discovered it might not be true. Being mistaken is not the same as being deceptive. 

 The CES Letter is correct when it says that there are statements from past Mormon leaders justifying and attempting to explain the Priesthood restriction before it was lifted. In the absence of an explanation from God detailing the reasons for the restriction, people came up with their own explanations. Some of these theories were indeed racist. After the 1978 revelation opening the Priesthood to all adult males, a Mormon Apostle told the members to forget everything anyone said before the date of the revelation, because it no longer applied.dclxxxi Today, the Mormon Church disavows those theories and acknowledges that some of them were racist.dclxxxii 

 “UPDATE: The Church released a Race and the Priesthood essay which contradicts their 2013 Official Declaration 2 Header. In the essay, they point to Brigham Young as the originator of the ban. Further, they effectively throw 10 latter-day ‘Prophets, Seers, and Revelators’ under the bus as they ‘disavow’ the ‘theories’ that these ten men taught and justified – for 130 years – as doctrine and revelation for the Church’s institutional and theological racism. Finally, they denounce the idea that God punishes individuals with black skin or that God withholds blessings based on the color of one’s skin while completely ignoring the contradiction of the keystone Book of Mormon teaching exactly this.” 

 That the Mormon Priesthood restriction was instituted by Brigham Young is accurate and not in dispute. What is unknown by Mormon Church leaders is whether Young received a revelation from God directing the restriction, or whether Young created the restriction for his own reasons.  

 The essay on Race and the Priesthood does not “throw latter-day ‘Prophets, Seers, and Revelators’ under the bus.” As new information was discovered about the lack of documentation for the Priesthood restriction, Mormon Church leaders clarified that past justifications were not true. While some Mormons believe that the Priesthood restriction was due to the racism prevalent in the 19th Century, other Mormons believe that it was at the direction of God. The Church leaders today take no official position on this due to lack of evidence. What they disavowed was theories explaining the reasoning behind the restriction, as no official reason can be given while the origins of the restriction are in doubt.  

 The Book of Mormon does not teach that God punishes those with black skin or that He withholds blessings based on the color of someone’s skin. At one point in The Book of Mormon, one of the factions of people, called the Lamanites, are cursed because they abandoned God (2 Ne. 5:20–22). This cursing is similar to other generational curses in the scriptures.dclxxxiii This curse was not given to the Lamanites because of their skin color and was a punishment because of their behavior. While the verses in question do mention a “skin of blackness” that comes over the Lamanites after they are cursed, “skin” in the scriptures does not typically refer to skin color. Other explanations include clothing, tattoos, body paint, or symbolism.dclxxxiv  

 “Zina Diantha Huntington Young: She was married for 7.5 months and was about 6 months pregnant with her first husband, Henry Jacobs, when she married Joseph after being told Joseph’s life was in danger from an angel with a drawn sword. After Joseph’s death, Zina married Brigham Young and had a child with him while still legally married to Henry Jacobs. Brigham sent Henry on missions while being married to Zina. Zina would eventually become the third General Relief Society President of the Church. [On] Zina’s whitewashed biographical page on lds.org, in the ‘Marriage and Family’ section, it does not list Joseph Smith as a husband or concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs. In the ‘Marriage and Family’ section, it does not list Brigham Young as a concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs. There is nothing in there about the polyandry. It is deceptive in stating that Henry and Zina ‘did not remain together’ while omitting that Henry separated only after Brigham Young took his wife and told Henry that Zina was now only his (Brigham) wife. [On] Zina’s index file on LDS-owned familysearch.org, it clearly shows all of Zina’s husbands, including her marriage to Joseph Smith. Why is Joseph Smith not listed as one of Zina’s husbands in the ‘Marriage and Family’ section or anywhere else on her biographical page on lds.org? Why is there not a single mention or hint of polyandry on her page or in that marriage section when she was married to two latter-day prophets and having children with Brigham Young while still being married to her first husband, Henry?” 

 Zina Huntington was sealed to Joseph Smith for the next life, not married to him for this life. As we explained in the Polygamy/Polyandry section, there were multiple types of sealings in the early days of the plural marriage practice in Nauvoo. There were sealings for time (akin to civil marriages, lasting for the duration of this lifetime); sealings for eternity only (marriages for the next life, with no marriage relationship in this one); sealings for time and eternity (marriages for both this life and the next); and adoption sealings (in which someone would be sealed into someone else’s family, linking their families for eternity).dclxxxv Huntington’s sealing to Smith was for eternity only, not for this life.dclxxxvi There is no evidence of sexual relations in their relationship.dclxxxvii Huntington explained that she was sealed to Smith because she believed she received a spiritual witness from God that she should.dclxxxviii The CES Letter is correct that this decision came after she learned that Smith’s life was in danger from an angel with a drawn sword.dclxxxix However, prior to that decision, Huntington experienced extreme anxiety regarding her marriage to Henry Jacobs, feeling that she had made the wrong choice and rejected the Lord’s will by marrying him. Upon making her decision to be sealed to Smith, that anxiety left, and she was at peace.dcxc She also claimed to have received revelatory dreams preparing her for the practice of plural marriage.dcxci  

 Henry Jacobs was “present and approving” during Zina Huntington’s sealing to Brigham Young for time only (this life, but not the next).dcxcii In the 19th Century, married couples often simply walked away from their marriages in something called a “folk divorce,” in which they both felt free to marry again.dcxciii Huntington and Young appeared to believe that their sealing for time superseded her marriage to Jacobs, ending that marriage and beginning a new one with Young.dcxciv According to Huntington, her marriage to Jacobs was not a happy one.dcxcv This explains why she left her marriage to Jacobs in favor of one with Young.  

 Jacobs was clearly not on a mission when this sealing took place if he witnessed it. His next mission came after the birth of his second son, with whom Huntington was pregnant when she became sealed to Young. After leaving on that mission, he sent Huntington a letter in which he stated that he did not blame Young for anything that happened.dcxcvi Within weeks of leaving, he proposed to two different women and subsequently married three more times, all of which ended in divorce.dcxcvii  

 There are several biographical pages for Huntington on the Mormon Church’s official website.dcxcviii Each of these pages serves a different purpose. The page linked in the CES Letter was meant to give highlights of her service in the Relief Society, with some brief biographical information included.dcxcix The page in the Church History Topics section was meant to give readers a more in-depth narrative of Huntington’s life, which included her sealings to both Smith and Young.dcc A page full of Huntington quotes interspersed with some biographical information was meant to spotlight Huntington’s testimony, while the biography at the Joseph Smith Papers is to show important dates and events in her life.dcci It is not accurate to say that the Mormon Church “whitewashed” Huntington’s history when the page cited by the CES Letter was not meant to be a full biography, merely a snapshot highlighting her Church service. Additionally, Huntington is the one who made the choice to be sealed to Smith and later to Young, rather than Jacobs. To say that Young “took” her is disingenuous and implies that Huntington had no say in the matter. Huntington, Jacobs, and Young all believed the Huntington-Jacobs marriage had ended even though there was no formal divorce.dccii 

 “In the Church’s Sunday School manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, the Church changed the word ‘wives’ to ‘[wife].’ Not only is the manual deceptive in disclosing whether or not Brigham Young was a polygamist but it’s deceptive in hiding Brigham Young’s real teaching on marriage: ‘The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.’— JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 11:269” 

 It is customary when sharing an edited quote to use brackets around the altered word. Indeed, this is an admission that the word was altered. There is no deception in that practice; it is the accepted standard format for such cases. The Mormon Church has never attempted to obscure the fact that Brigham Young had multiple wives. This is a well-known fact about Young. 

 While Young’s teachings are still relevant today, Mormons no longer practice plural marriage. Because of this, the word “wives” was changed to “wife” to be more applicable to today’s society. The alteration of the word does not change the content of the relevant passages.  

 As for Young’s “real teaching on marriage,” the CES Letter omits the full context of the quote in question. Young stated in his speech that, while plural marriage was uncomfortable and he didn’t like the practice any more than they did, he believed it was a commandment, so he knew he had to support it. Those who were directed to engage in the practice and refused would suffer eternal consequences, as would those who rejected the principle even if they weren’t among those directed to practice it. He was not saying that only polygamists would be exalted and become Gods. He was saying that only those who accepted it as a commandment from God, whether they engaged in the practice or not, would qualify for exaltation.dcciii 

  • References

    dclxxii. For example, see Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1956): 225–226, in which Smith refers to the accounts as “hearsay,” and says, “…personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose.”

    dclxxiii. For an overview of the many accounts assessed, please see Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Michael Hubbard MacKay, “Firsthand Witness Accounts of the Translation Process,” in The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, ed. Dennis L. Largey, Andrew H. Hedges, John Hilton III, Kerry Hull (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2015): 61–79, online at rsc.byu.edu.

    dclxxiv. For more information about this revelation and how it came about, see Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies Quarterly 47, no. 2 (2008): 5–78, online at byustudies.byu.edu. 

    dclxxv. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essay, December 6, 2013, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dclxxvi. See “Brigham Young, 1852 February 5,” Church History Department Pitman Shorthand transcriptions, 2013–2014: “The Lost Sermons” publishing project files, 1852–1867, trans. LaJean Purcell Carruth March 1, 2013, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org.

    dclxxvii. See Brigham Young, “43. The True Church of Christ—The Living Testimony—Word of Wisdom,” in The Journal of Discourses, Volume 12, ed. G. D. Watt, E. L. Sloan, D. W. Evans (Liverpool, UK: Albert Carrington, 1869): 207, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Brigham Young, “28. Eternal Increase of Knowledge—Necessity of Cleaving to Every Good Principle—Men are Not Made Saints by Miraculous Gifts, but Through Obeying the Truth, and Obtaining the Witness of the Spirit,” in The Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, ed. G. D. Watt (Liverpool, UK: Orson Pratt, 1856): 209, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dclxxviii. See “1949 First Presidency provides a statement on the priesthood and temple restriction for Black Saints to an anonymous correspondent,” B. H. Roberts Foundation, accessed March 18, 2024, online at bhroberts.org.

    dclxxix. See “1949: First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith),” FAIR, accessed March 18, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dclxxx. See Lester E. Bush, Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8, no. 1 (Spring 1973): 11–68, online at dialoguejournal.com.

    dclxxxi. See Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike Unto God,” BYU Devotional speech, August 18, 1978, online at speeches.byu.edu.

    dclxxxii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essay, December 6, 2013, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dclxxxiii. See John S. Thompson “’Being of that Lineage’: Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham,” The Interpreter: A Latter-day Saint Journal of Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 97–146, online at journal.interpreterfoundation.org. 

    dclxxxiv. See Book of Mormon Central, “What is the ’Skin of Blackness’ in the Book of Mormon?” KnoWhy #718, February 14, 2024, online at bookofmormoncentral.org. 

    dclxxxv. See Brian C. Hales, “Plural Ceremonies Created Marriages of Different Durations,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed March 19, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org; see also Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Sealing,” Church History Topics, accessed March 19, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dclxxxvi. See “Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young,” Saints’ Herald, January 11, 1905, pg. 29, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dclxxxvii. See Brian C. Hales, “Sealings to Legally Married Women,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed March 19, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org; Brian C. Hales, “Zina Diantha Huntington,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed March 19, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org. 

    dclxxxviii. See Brian C. Hales, “Zina Diantha Huntington,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed March 19, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org. 

    dclxxxix. See Martha Sonntag Bradley, Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, 4 Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2000): 163–164, Kindle edition.

    dcxc. See Martha Sonntag Bradley, Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, 4 Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2000): 163–164, Kindle edition.  

    dcxci. See “Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young,” Saints’ Herald, January 11, 1905, pg. 29, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcxcii. Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, “Each in Her Own Time: Four Zinas,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26, no. 2 (Summer 1993): 121, online at dialoguejournal.com. 

    dcxciii. See Laura Harris Hales, “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding,” 2015 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 19, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Allen L. Wyatt, “Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,” 2006 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 19, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Beverly Schwartzberg, “’Lots of Them Did That’: Desertion, Bigamy, and Marital Fluidity in Late-Nineteenth-Century America,” Journal of Social History 37, no. 3 (Spring 2004): 573–600, online at jstor.org.

    dcxciv. See Allen L. Wyatt, “Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,” 2006 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 19, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcxcv. See “Evidence from Zina D. Huntington-Young,” Saints’ Herald, January 11, 1905, pg. 29, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org; Emmeline B. Wells, “A Distinguished Woman: Zina D. H. Young, continued,” The Women’s Exponent 10, no. 13, December 1, 1881, pg. 99, online at contentdm.lib.byu.edu. 

    dcxcvi. See Martha Sonntag Bradley, Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, 4 Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2000): 210–211, Kindle edition. 

    dcxcvii. See Brian C. Hales, “Zina Diantha Huntington,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed March 19, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org. 

    dcxcviii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Zina Diantha Huntington Young: Third General President of the Relief Society, 1888–1901,” Relief Society Presidents, accessed March 19, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Zina D. H. Jacobs Young,” Church History Topics, accessed March 19, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Zina D. Huntington Young: A Testimony in the Heart of a Girl,” Church History, accessed March 19, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; and “Young, Zina Diantha Huntington,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 19, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org. 

    dcxcix. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Zina Diantha Huntington Young: Third General President of the Relief Society, 1888–1901,” Relief Society Presidents, accessed March 19, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcc. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Zina D. H. Jacobs Young,” Church History Topics, accessed March 19, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcci. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Zina D. Huntington Young: A Testimony in the Heart of a Girl,” Church History, accessed March 19, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; and “Young, Zina Diantha Huntington,” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 19, 2024, online at josephsmithpapers.org.

    dccii. See Allen L. Wyatt, “Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young,” 2006 FAIR Conference presentation, accessed March 19, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Martha Sonntag Bradley, Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, 4 Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2000): 210–211, Kindle edition. 

    dcciii. In The Journal of Discourses, the full paragraph in question reads, “Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”— the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” See Brigham Young, “41. Delegate Hooper—Beneficial Effects of Polygamy—Final Redemption of Cain,” in The Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, ed. G. D. Watt, E. L. Sloan, D. W. Evans (Liverpool, UK: B. Young, Jun., 1867): 268–269, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. Because the sermons in The Journal of Discourses were edited from the original transcripts during the publication process, the sermon’s original transcript is also relevant to the discussion. To read that transcript, see “Brigham Young, 1866 August 19,” Church History Department Pitman Shorthand transcriptions, 2013–2023: Addresses and sermons, 1851–1874: Brigham Young, 1851–1877: 1866, trans. LaJean Purcell Carruth, September 15, 2009, accessed March 19, 2024, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

Censorship and Concealment of Church Records Outlined in the CES Letter

“In November 2013, Church Historian Elder Steven E. Snow acknowledged the Church’s censorship and pointed to the advent of the internet as the contributing factor to the Church’s inability to continue its pattern of hiding information and records from members and investigators: ‘I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation — with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open.'” 

 It is hyperbole to say that Elder Snow “acknowledged the Church’s censorship” and suggested the creation of the internet as the reason for the Mormon Church’s “inability to continue its pattern of hiding information and records from members and investigators.” The phrasing used implies deception and deliberate withholding of information, which is not what Snow described in his interview. 

 When reading the full interview, this quote in context came when Snow explained the policies of former Mormon Church historians, and how it was a religious calling rather than a professional appointment.dcciv The Church archives were in a much smaller building, and access to the collections was limited because someone had to go there in person to request it. Some of those requests were denied for various reasons, and access to some special collections was granted only to historians with a need to view them. However, after the creation of the internet, those collections could be put online for anyone to view. Because much of the information in those collections was already being published by historians, and critics were also sharing the information widely, it was better for the Mormon Church to put them online itself. The Church has continued the practice of sharing those archived collections, and there are currently tens of thousands of free documents online for anyone to read.dccv 

The CES Letter’s Examination of Mormon Finances and Alleged Corruption

“There is zero transparency to members of the Church. Why is the one and only true Church keeping its books in the dark? Why would God’s one true Church choose to “keep them in darkness” over such a stewardship? History has shown time and time again that secret religious wealth is a breeding ground for corruption. The Church used to be transparent with its finances but ceased disclosures in 1959.” 

 The LDS Church is fully compliant with all national and international tax laws in more than 150 countries.dccvi It releases all information required by law in each of those countries. Financial reports are made in the United Kingdom and Canada, which can be found online.dccvii There are many legitimate reasons why the Mormon Church may have stopped issuing public financial statements in the United States as their wealth began to grow. Some of these reasons include the fact that missionaries were kidnapped in Russia in 1998 because the kidnappers saw a Time Magazine article about the Church’s finances, and that lawyers for those suing the Church have requested financial records in order to sway juries into giving large settlements.dccviii  

 The phrase “keep them in darkness” in the CES Letter is linked to a scripture from The Book of Mormon, Ether 8:16. This verse describes secret oaths and signs, instituted by the Devil and used by evil people forming groups called “secret combinations.” These shadowy groups seek power and will do anything to achieve it, including murder, plunder, lie, and “commit all manner of wickedness and whoredoms.” By linking that verse to the Mormon Church, the CES Letter is implying that the Church is one of those evil groups willing to break whatever laws are necessary to gain power. This is not a fair assessment, and this claim cannot be taken seriously. 

 In the original version of the CES Letter, the line about “secret religious wealth” initially read “corporate secret wealth.”dccix Corporate wealth and religious wealth are very different things. They are used for different purposes, and they are taxed differently by world governments. Further, no citation or example for either claim was provided. It is inaccurate to say that the Mormon Church’s wealth is “secret” when it complies with all disclosures required by law, and when that wealth has been the focus of so much media attention.dccx 

 “ESTIMATED $1.5 BILLION LUXURY MEGAMALL CITY CREEK CENTER: Total Church humanitarian aid from 1985-2011: $1.4 billion. Something is fundamentally wrong with ‘the one true Church’ spending more on an estimated $1.5 billion dollar high-end megamall than it has in 26 years of humanitarian aid. For an organization that claims to be Christ’s only true Church, this expenditure is a moral failure on so many different levels. For a Church that asks its members to sacrifice greatly for Temple building, such as the case of Argentinians giving the Church gold from their dental work for the São Paulo Brazil Temple, this mall business is absolutely shameful. Of all the things that Christ would tell His prophet, the prophet buys a mall and says ‘Let’s go shopping!’? Of all the sum total of human suffering and poverty on this planet, the inspiration the Brethren feel for His Church is to get into the declining high-end shopping mall business?” 

 The $1.4 billion figure for humanitarian aid between 1985–2011 is not the entire charitable expenditure of the Mormon Church. For one thing, it reports “humanitarian” aid and “welfare” aid separately.dccxi The Mormon Church operates five educational institutions—one of which is an online platform serving students from 150 different countries—and subsidizes the educations of 138,000 students annually. In addition to this, it operates hundreds of church houses, temples, seminary and institute buildings, mission headquarters, and missionary apartments around the world; runs multiple welfare programs, and has canneries, storehouses, farms, and ranches dedicated to those welfare programs; provides disaster relief; donates to the Red Cross and the Red Cresent as well as other charities; donates food and funds through the Fast Offering program; provides service missionaries; helps subsize the missions for some of the Church’s 72,000 missionaries; sponsors Just Serve and Light the World to give back to local communities; funds family history work; funds history research and publishing; and much more.dccxii The charitable arm called Latter-day Saint Charities alone has spent $2 billion since 1985 on humanitarian efforts.dccxiii The Mormon Church now spends more than $1 billion in charitable ventures each year.dccxiv 

 The City Creek Center project was undertaken because downtown Salt Lake City, Utah was dilapidated. Because that is where the headquarters of the Mormon Church is located, its leaders felt the need to help revitalize the surrounding area.dccxv This is not the only area or state the Mormon Church has paid to revitalize.dccxvi The venture worked, adding 2,000 new, permanent jobs in addition to the construction jobs needed for the project. It also brought more than 16 million visitors into the downtown area, and increased retail sales by 36%, or $209 million, in 2012.dccxvii It is difficult to see how this is a “moral failure on so many different levels” or “absolutely shameful.” It created jobs for those in need, brought more visitors and more money to the area, and inspired other local interest groups to donate a further $3.5 billion to improve more of downtown Salt Lake City.dccxviii  

In 1976–77 when the São Paulo, Brazil temple was built, the Mormon Church had considerably less money than it does today. At the time, Mormons were asked to help raise 1/3 of the cost of new temples. This is no longer the case, now that the Church has enough money to pay the full cost of each new temple it builds. When an Argentine man attempted to donate his gold dental bridge to a pair of missionaries for the temple, they attempted to decline the offer because it was too much for anyone to donate. The man insisted, and the donation was finally accepted.dccxix This was not something the Mormon Church required of him, and temple donations are not something it requests of its members today. 

As outlined above, the Mormon Church spends a considerable amount of time, money, and resources on welfare and charitable endeavors. That amount of money far exceeds the money spent on the City Creek Mall and other revitalization efforts. Additionally, while giving aid to the poor is a worthy goal, it is not the only goal of a church. Jesus Christ taught that sometimes, honoring God should take priority (Mark 14:3–9), and Mormon Church leaders take their stewardship over the church’s finances very seriously.dccxx This is why the Mormon Church also spends large sums of money in other areas, and why they have a “rainy day fund” for emergencies.  

 “PRESIDENT HINCKLEY’S DISHONEST INTERVIEW: President Hinckley made the following dishonest statement in a 2002 interview to a German journalist:” 

 Reporter: In my country, the…we say the people’s Churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public. 

Hinckley: Yeah. Yeah. 

Reporter: Why is it impossible for your Church? 

Hinckley: Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes. 

 “Where can I see the Church’s books? I’ve paid tithing. Where can I go to see what the Church’s finances are? Where can current tithing paying members go to see the books? The answer: we can’t. Even if you’ve made the contributions as President Hinckley stated above? Unless you’re an authorized General Authority or senior Church employee in the accounting department with a Non-Disclosure Agreement? You’re out of luck. President Hinckley knew this and for whatever reason made the dishonest statement.” 

Because the CES Letter only links to a video snippet of this exchange and not the entire interview, it is impossible to know the context in which this question was asked and answered. It is not clear if they were discussing the entire annual budget for the Mormon Church or something else entirely. Hinckley’s response appears to refer to tithing contributions, which Mormons have access to. Each year, Mormons have a tithing settlement meeting with their local leadership where they go over their yearly contributions and confirm the total amount for tax purposes.  

 There is a purported transcript of this interview online, though it can’t be authenticated without access to the entire video interview.dccxxi In that transcript, Hinckley states that the budget of the Church comes mainly from tithing contributions from the members. That would make sense with his response and clarifies that the Church’s income isn’t disclosed publicly for the donors’ privacy. If the transcript is correct, Hinckley was speaking of tithing settlement meetings. The author of the CES Letter would have access to his own contributions each year at his settlement meeting. It would not be appropriate for Mormon Church leaders to show him someone else’s donations at those meetings.  

 The CES Letter removes the tiny interview snippet from all context to alter its meaning. Hinckley was not suggesting that tithe-payers have access to the entire Mormon Church budget and all its financial records. He was saying that the donation information belongs to the donors themselves. There is no dishonesty in that statement. 

 “TITHING BEFORE RENT, WATER, ELECTRICITY, AND FEEDING YOUR FAMILY:” The CES Letter gives two quotes here, one from the December 2012 Ensign and one from the 2017 General Conference. These quotes encourage paying your tithing before paying for your other expenses, because the Lord will bless you if you do. The CES Letter continues, “Would a loving, kind, and empathic God really place parents in the horrible position of having to choose whether to feed their children or pay what little they have to a multi-billion luxury megamall owning church that receives an estimated $8,000,000,000 in annual tithing receipts? ‘Well, God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son and besides, the Lord will take care of them through the Bishop’s storehouse.’ Yes, the same god who tested Abraham is also the same capricious god who killed innocent babies and endorsed genocide, slavery, and rape. The claims, counsels, and directives of these General Authorities, compensated with annual six figure church salaries, to prioritize money before the needs, health, and well-being of children is hypocritical and morally reprehensible. Besides, whatever happened to self-sufficiency? Begging the Bishop for food when you had the money for food but because you followed the above counsel and gave your food money to the Church you’re now dependent on the Church for food money? If you give your food and rent money to the Church, you are not self-reliant…you are Church-reliant.” 

 This is a distortion of what the quotes in question discuss. The first quote comes from an article called “Sacred Transformations” by Aaron L. West in the December 2012 Ensign.dccxxii The family in question was promised aid and blessings if they paid their tithing, and they received both. They received help from the Mormon Church, the wife received a promotion, and the husband, who was looking for work, found a good, steady job. Mormons believe that paying tithing is a commandment from God.dccxxiii The Church’s welfare programs step in to assist those who suffer financial strain while trying to remain obedient to the commandments of God. The second quote comes from a General Conference talk by Elder Valeri Cordón.dccxxiv His parents believed that if they obeyed God, they would be blessed. When they were in a period of financial trouble, they paid their tithing even though they did not have food for groceries. The next morning, people arrived with an urgent job that needed to be done, and they paid in advance, allowing the family to buy food. The lesson Cordón was teaching is that the Lord will bless you if you obey His commandments. The scriptures teach that, in particular, there are special blessings that come from paying tithing (Mal. 3:10–11, D&C 64:23). The talks were to stress that, if you experience financial hardship due to your committment to obey the commandments of God, the Church would help you so that you could keep those commandments without having to choose between that and feeding your families or paying your rent. This is precisely the opposite intent than the CES Letter suggests. 

 Mormons pay tithing for many reasons. Those reasons include being obedient to God, expressing their gratitude for their blessings, to demonstrate their trust in Him, to learn sacrifice and self-discipline, and to help further God’s work on earth.dccxxv Mormons also do not believe that God is “capricious,” or that He endorses “genocide, slavery, and rape.” There are many stories in the Bible that are difficult for us to understand, given that we live in a different culture, society, and time than those featured in the stories. However, Mormons believe that God is a loving Father in Heaven who teaches His earthly children in their mortal weaknesses, according to their own language and understanding (2 Ne. 31:3, D&C 1:24). This means that He would have taught the ancient Israelites using the culture they were familiar with and their understanding of the world around them.  

 Living stipends for leaders of the Mormon Church who serve full-time are modest compared to those of other heads of similarly sized non-profit organizations or educational institutions, or even members of Congress.dccxxvi The stipends are uniform for all General Authorities, and do not come from tithing funds.dccxxvii This allows these people to serve the needs of the Mormons full-time without worrying about providing for their families’ temporal needs. It also allows leaders of the Mormon Church to come from all income levels instead of only those wealthy enough to support themselves.dccxxviii Encouraging members to obey the commandments of God while helping them provide for their temporal needs if necessary is not “hypocritical and morally reprehensible,” despite the CES Letter’s claim. The leaders of the Mormon Church want everyone to receive those blessings promised by God in the scriptures, including that He will “open unto you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Mal. 3:10). Additionally, those leaders themselves obey the commandment to pay tithes. 

 The Mormon Church does teach self-reliance to its members, that’s true.dccxxix However, everyone needs help occasionally. There is no shame in requesting help when needed. The Mormon Church offers employment assistance, food and financial donations, educational programs, and more to help members improve their financial prospects to better provide for their families. This does not make Mormons “Church-reliant.”  

 “DISHONESTLY ALTERING LORENZO SNOW’S WORDS AND TEACHINGS ON TITHING: The Church took the Prophet Lorenzo Snow’s 1899 General Conference Address words and deliberately omitted and replaced key words on tithing with ellipsis in its Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow manual. This is what Lorenzo Snow said in his 1899 General Conference Address: ‘I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.’ Compare this to how the Church uses and presents Snow’s exact same quote today in its Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow manual: ‘I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.’ The Church dishonestly alters and completely changes Lorenzo Snow’s words and teaching on tithing by removing ‘who has means’ from his 1899 General Conference quote in its Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow manual.” 

 One definition of “means” is “income.”dccxxx While it can also mean “ability,” it is unclear from the context of the full sermon which definition Snow intended.dccxxxi If it was decided by Mormon leaders that Snow meant “income,” the alteration would have been made to clarify his meaning. Because language evolves over time, sermons that are decades or centuries old become difficult to understand in places. They are often edited for clarity when they are reproduced after so long.  

Another explanation may be that the circumstances of the Mormon Church and its membership have changed since 1899. As the CES Letter has aptly demonstrated in this section, the Church has much more wealth than it did a century ago. It now has the capacity to provide for the temporal needs of its members when they need assistance. There are numerous welfare programs in place to give temporary aid to those who are struggling to make ends meet. When Snow gave that sermon, it was on the heels of reinstituting the principle of tithing after a lengthy period in which Mormons were not obeying the commandment.dccxxxii Because it was a relatively new principle for many recent converts to Mormonism, it may have been the case that only those with the ability to pay tithing without suffering financial hardship were commanded to pay it. However, now that the commandment has been in place for nearly 200 years and the Mormon Church can help members who do suffer hardship because it, the teachings surrounding tithing may be different today than they were 125 years ago. 

 While some readers may be concerned with the idea of teachings changing over time, that is common in a church that believes in continuous revelation. The Mormon Church teaches that different people in different time periods will need different guidance from God that’s more applicable to them. So, some commandments and guidance that was relevant 200 years ago when the Mormon Church was founded may not be relevant in today’s world.dccxxxiii 

 “In 2012, a Latter-day Saint published an eye-opening blog post that went viral among internet Mormons: Are We Paying Too Much Tithing? The article demonstrates how what is currently taught and practiced is contrary to how it was taught and practiced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, including Lorenzo Snow; whose above quote was deceptively altered and manipulated for today’s tithe-paying members.” 

 The author of this “eye-opening blog post” is a man who was excommunicated from the Mormon Church for teaching that prophets are leading Mormons away from the true gospel.dccxxxiv Because Mormons believe in continuous revelation from God through the prophets He calls as His mouthpieces, individuals who teach that the prophets are wrong are in a state of apostasy.dccxxxv In the Mormon Church, that is a sin that, if not repented for, will lead to a loss of membership.  

 The blog post in question is one example of why this man lost his membership in the Mormon Church. Because some teachings change over time as society and circumstances change, how the principle of tithing was taught in Joseph Smith’s day is naturally different from how it is taught today. In the Mormon Church, only the president of the Church can receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church membership.dccxxxvi Similarly, only they have the authority to correct the entire Church membership when they are doing something wrong. Individual members do not have the authority necessary to make those declarations (D&C 28: 1–7, Amos 3:7).  

 Mormons are not expected to listen to their leaders blindly, however. They are expected to pray to see whether what their prophets teach them is correct.dccxxxvii If a Mormon does not feel that a prophet’s guidance is correct, they can choose for themselves whether to follow that guidance or not.  

The CES Letter’s Analysis of the Church’s Name Evolution
  • 1830: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST 
  • 1834: THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS 
  • 1838: THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.  

 “After revealing ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith made the decision on May 3, 1834 to change the name of the Church to ‘The Church of the Latter Day Saints.’ Why did Joseph take the name of ‘Jesus Christ’ out of the very name of His restored Church? The one and only true Church on the face of the earth in which Christ is the Head? Four years later on April 26, 1838, the Church name was changed to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and has remained ever since (except the hyphen was added later to be grammatically correct). Is it reasonable to assume that God would periodically change the name of his Church? If Jesus Christ is the central character of God’s religion on earth and all things are to be done in His name, is it reasonable to assume that God would instruct His Church leaders to entirely leave out the name of Jesus Christ from the period of May 3, 1834–April 26, 1838? What possible reason could there be for the name changes? Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838? Why would the name of Christ be dropped from His one and only true Church for 4 whole years? What does this say about a Church that claims to be restored and guided by modern revelation?” 

 Instead of saying that Smith “revealed” the name of the Mormon Church on April 6, 1830, the original version of the CES Letter said Smith “decided” on the name.dccxxxviii The original version was more accurate to Smith’s claims, so it is unclear why the word was altered.dccxxxix Unless it was done in ignorance of history, it is difficult to find reasons for the change that are not deliberately deceptive.dccxl   

 In The Book of Mormon, the Savior tells the Nephites that His church should be called the Church of Christ (3 Ne. 27:8). Because of this pronouncement, Smith decided to call the church he claimed to restore the Church of Christ at its organization in 1830. However, there were numerous other churches with the same name, leading to people referring to Smith’s church as the Mormonite or Mormon church to differentiate it from the other Churches of Christ.dccxli Because Peter and Paul called the followers of Christ “saints” in the New Testament, a decision was made to change the name of the church to the Church of the Latter Day Saints to give it a unique name that still showed the Mormons were followers of Christ.dccxlii This measure was passed by unanimous vote during a church conference. According to David Whitmer, this proposal came from Sidney Rigdon.dccxliii During this time, the Church was still often called the Church of Christ by its members, and they occasionally combined the two names.dccxliv On April 26, 1838, Smith claimed to receive a revelation from the Lord, dictating the official name of the church as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 115: 3–4), which it has retained ever since. 

 This history makes it clear that Smith never claimed God or Jesus Christ instructed him to name his church either the Church of Christ or the Church of the Latter Day Saints. According to him, when the Lord did instruct him to change the name of the church, he did, and it has not changed since that day. The CES Letter’s charges that God or Jesus Christ changed their minds and flip-flopped on the names are therefore not accurate. Moreover, the original version of the CES Letter shows the author was aware of that in 2013.dccxlv 

Anti-Intellectualism and Selective Truth-Telling: The CES Letter’s Critique

“SOME THINGS THAT ARE TRUE ARE NOT VERY USEFUL: Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk to Church Educational System Instructors and faculty at a CES Symposium on August 22, 1981 entitled The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect. Elder Packer said the following: ‘There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.’ Elder Dallin H. Oaks made a similar comment in the context of Church history at a CES Symposium on August 16, 1985: ‘The fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.’ Joseph using a rock in a hat instead of the gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon is not a useful truth? The fact that there are multiple conflicting first vision accounts is not a useful truth? The fact that Joseph Smith was involved in polyandry while hiding it from Emma, when D&C 132:61 condemns it as ‘adultery,’ is not a useful truth? Elder Packer continues: ‘That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith – particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith – places himself in great spiritual jeopardy.'” 

The talks by Boyd K. Packer and Dallin H. Oaks are removed from their context in the CES Letter. Both talks were given to educators employed by the Mormon Church to teach religion classes for high school and college students. Their primary responsibility is to teach young adults the gospel while helping them to grow their testimonies.  

Packer told these instructors to be careful in how they delivered controversial history topics, because some of their students might not yet be prepared to hear the information. He encouraged the educators to help the students lay a strong foundation so that they could learn of these issues without damaging their testimony. He reminded them that their responsibility as educators was to help their students, not harm them.dccxlvi 

 Oaks gave his talk to teach educators how to identify and counteract media bias and evaluate sources. The relevant portion of the talk was to say that even the truth could be used unrighteously. One example he gave was that removing facts and quotes from all context in order to promote an inaccurate picture is dishonest, even if the fact was true or the quote was accurate. He also pointed to blackmail, breaking a confidence, and preaching gospel truths for the purpose of gaining riches and honor as other examples. In those cases, while the information shared may be true, the person sharing was not necessarily justified in doing so.dccxlvii 

 The CES Letter creates a straw-man argument, suggesting that Packer and Oaks were encouraging CES educators to hide accurate history and not teach Mormons the truth of their religion. Neither talk suggested doing this. Smith using a personal seer stone in addition to the Nephite Interpreters during the translation process for The Book of Mormon, the different accounts of his First Vision, and his being sealed to women for the next life while they were married to another man in this life have already been addressed in detail in prior sections. Packer’s final quote speaks of those who “delight” in casting blame and highlighting a person’s flaws, which again removes those facts from their proper context. He was not speaking of all scholars or historians, but those who purposely try to weaken someone’s testimony by only focusing on a past leader’s mistakes and shortcomings. When we only focus on the negative aspects of the past, it creates a distorted view of history. This is what Packer was cautioning against. 

 “If facts and truths can destroy faith…what does it say about faith? If prophets of the Church conducted themselves in such a way that it can destroy faith, what does this say about the prophets? What’s interesting about Elder Packer’s above quote is that he’s focusing on history from the point of view that a historian is only interested in the ‘weaknesses and frailties of present and past leaders.’ Historians are also interested in things like how the Book of Mormon got translated or how many accounts Joseph gave about the foundational first vision or whether the Book of Abraham even matches the papyri and facsimiles. Besides, it matters in the religious context what past and present leaders ‘weaknesses and frailties’ are. If Joseph’s public position was that adultery and polygamy are morally wrong and condemned by God, what does it say about him and his character that he did exactly that in the dark while lying to Emma and everyone else about it? How is this not a useful truth? A relevant hypothetical example to further illustrate this point: The prophet or one of the apostles gets caught with child pornography on his hard drive. This matters, especially in light of his current position, status, and teachings on morality. Just because a leader wears a religious hat does not follow that they’re exempt from history and accountability from others.” 

 Packer and Oaks did not say that faith or the behavior of the prophets could destroy faith. They said that facts, removed from their context and framed inaccurately, or taught before a person was ready to handle the details, could destroy faith. Packer’s second quote was specifically talking about those who exaggerate and spotlight a leader’s flaws, rather than putting them in context and giving an accurate picture of their life. He was discussing the metaphorical difference between a salacious gossip magazine and a reputable newspaper. It is understandable for readers to be confused by his comments when they are removed from their proper context. However, that is exactly what Oaks was speaking against in his quote. 

 The CES Letter presents an inaccurate picture of what Packer said. He did not say that “a historian is only interested the ‘weaknesses and frailties of present and past leaders.’” He was not speaking of all historians, but those who “delight” in tearing down public figures by highlighting their flaws and shortcomings while neglecting to give a fuller picture. Historians would naturally be interested in each of the items the CES Letter lists, that’s true. Again, each of those topics have been discussed in prior sections for readers who are also interested in them. 

 It certainly matters what a religious leader’s flaws are and what behavior they engage in. Packer did not suggest otherwise. Regarding Smith’s public and private behavior, however, the framing in the CES Letter is incorrect. D&C 132:61 states that a man does not commit adultery when he engages in polygamy that is sanctioned by God.dccxlviii Because Smith believed that his plural marriages were sanctioned by God, he was not committing adultery by having more than one wife. The CES Letter likely meant to cite D&C 132:63, which states that a woman must not have more than one simultaneous husband, or it would be considered adultery.dccxlix Smith was sealed to some women who were legally married to other men; however, those unions were not for this lifetime, and there is no evidence of sexuality in those relationships.dccl They were unions for the next life only. Because civil marriages end with divorce or death, a marriage in the next life would not conflict with a marriage in this one. Under the guidelines laid out in D&C 132, those unions would not have been adulterous, either. Smith also did not publicly condemn polygamy as commanded by God. He condemned unauthorized polygamous unions. Mormons believe that polygamy is morally wrong unless specifically commanded by God (Jacob 2:23–33).dccli This was Smith’s public and private position.dcclii 

While the proposed hypothetical would indeed be an important story that should not be sugarcoated or defended, it should be noted that no Mormon Prophet or Apostle has ever been accused of any such crime. Neither did any of them suggest that such crimes should be covered up. Packer merely said that it was wrong to delight in discussing a person’s shortcomings over everything else, giving the listener a distorted view of the individual in question. At that point, it becomes gossiping rather than teaching. It is not clear what the CES Letter means by saying that a person could become “exempt from history,” but Mormons believe in being held accountable for their sins,dccliii and in obeying and honoring the law (Articles of Faith 1:12). Such an extreme hypothetical appears designed solely to paint Latter-day Saints in a negative light, especially given that it bears no relation to the actual words Packer spoke. 

“Further, testimonies are acquired in part by the recitation of a historical narrative. Missionaries recite the narrative about Joseph Smith searching and praying for answers, about acquiring the gold plates and translating the Book of Mormon, about the Priesthood being restored along with other foundational narratives. Why should investigators and members not learn the correct and candid version of that historical narrative, for better or for worse? Are members and investigators not entitled to a truthful accounting of the real origins of Mormonism? The question should not be whether it’s faith promoting or not to share ugly but truthful facts. The question should be: Is it the honest thing to do?” 

It is not clear where the CES Letter’s author got the idea that anyone suggested Mormons and investigators of the Mormon Church should not learn the correct narrative of the Church’s history. That is not what Packer or Oaks said in their talks, and no further quotes have been cited. This is another example of the straw-man fallacy, in which the CES Letter is arguing a different point than the one the speakers made. One indeed might ask whether it is the right thing to do to engage in such rhetoric. 

“CRITICIZING LEADERS: Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the following disturbing comment in the PBS documentary, The Mormons: ‘It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.'” 

This quote initially came from the same talk that the earlier Oaks quote came from.dccliv During his interview on the PBS documentary, he was asked what was meant by that line.dcclv Oaks explained that criticizing Church leaders diminishes their ability to lead, and that you can work to correct a leader more effectively by some other means. He also clarified that he was speaking to those specifically who write history, rather than rather than people talking amongst themselves.  

“RESEARCHING ‘UNAPPROVED’ MATERIALS ON THE INTERNET.” The CES Letter quotes Mormon Apostles Quentin L. Cook and Dieter F. Uchtdorf saying that some people exaggerate or invent untrue things in order to create doubt, and just because something is said, printed, or supported by powerful groups of people does not make it true. It then says, “Why does it matter whether information was received from a stranger, television, book, magazine, comic book, napkin, and yes, the internet? They are all mediums or conduits of information. It’s the information itself, its accuracy, and its relevance that matters. Elder Neil L. Andersen made the following statement in the October 2014 General Conference specifically targeting the medium of the internet in a bizarre attempt to discredit the internet as a reliable source for getting factual and truthful information: ‘We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a ‘truth’ filter. Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.’”  

Quentin L. Cook described multiple things that can lead to someone losing their religious conviction.dcclvi The example of reading critical, exaggerated, and untrue things about early Mormon Church leaders was one of many things he listed that could result in that loss of conviction. It was the lack of conviction and taking the gospel and Atonement for granted that he recommended repenting for, not reading untrue things on the internet.  

Dieter F. Uchtdorf explained that not everything we read is true, and that we need to be careful about accepting things at face value without digging deeper.dcclvii This advice should be reasonable to most readers, as misinformation is rampant in the world today.  

It is equally difficult to understand the objection to the words of Neil L. Andersen. The CES Letter is surely not trying to suggest that everything on the internet is true, so the criticism of Andersen is perplexing.  

Regardless, the CES Letter’s assertion that it is not the source of the information that matters, but its accuracy, is precisely what the three Mormon Apostles were each saying in their respective talks. Each of the talks encouraged listeners to investigate and evaluate the information before blindly believing it. 

“UPDATE: Ironically, the only way for members to directly read the Church’s admissions and validations of yesterday’s ‘anti-Mormon lies’ is by going on the internet to the Gospel Topics Essays section of the Church’s website. The essays and their presence on lds.org have disturbed and shocked many members – some to the point of even believing that the Church’s website has been hacked. With all this talk from General Authorities against the internet and daring to be balanced by looking at what both defenders and critics are saying about the Church, it is as if questioning and researching and doubting is now the new pornography. Truth has no fear of the light. President George A. Smith said: ‘If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.’ A church that is afraid to let its people determine for themselves truth and falsehood in an open market is a church that is insecure and afraid of its own truth claims.” 

It is not ironic that the LDS Church maintains a website and puts important information on that site. Mormons—including Mormon leaders—believe that the internet is an incredibly useful tool, but one that needs to be used wisely. One leader, Randall L. Ridd, said, “You are growing up with one of the greatest tools for good in the history of man: the Internet. With it comes an elaborate buffet of choices. The abundance of choice, however, carries with it an equal portion of accountability. It facilitates your access to both the very best and the very worst the world has to offer. With it you can accomplish great things in a short period of time, or you can get caught up in endless loops of triviality that waste your time and degrade your potential. With the click of a button, you can access whatever your heart desires. That’s the key—what does your heart desire? What do you gravitate toward? Where will your desires lead? Remember that God “granteth unto men according to their desire” (Alma 29:4) and that He “will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts” (D&C 137:9; Alma 41:3).”dcclviii Quentin L. Cook, who was just quoted by the CES Letter, also said, “A wonderful example of the need for moderation, balance, and wisdom is the use of the Internet. It can be used to do missionary outreach, to assist with priesthood responsibilities, to find precious ancestors for sacred temple ordinances, and much more. The potential for good is enormous. We also know that it can transmit much that is evil, including pornography, digital cruelty, and anonymous yakking. It can also perpetuate foolishness.”dcclix  

Mormon General Authorities have not spoken against the internet as a means of communication and source of information. They have only urged caution with believing everything you read without digging deeper, and with avoiding the darker corners of the internet where morally questionable content resides. They have also not spoken against looking at balanced information. However, spending your time reading information that is solely critical of the Mormon Church, without reading information that is supportive of it, will skew your perspective. This is what the LDS Church leaders have counseled against.dcclx  

The comment that “it’s as if questioning and researching and doubting is the new pornography” is hyperbolic. The Mormon Church was founded/restored because Joseph Smith had questions that he took to God.dcclxi To say that the Church leaders disparage those with questions, or those who research Church history and theology, is not accurate. The message the 72,000+ current missionaries of the LDS Church share with investigators is to pray, study, and discover for themselves whether the Mormon Church is the true Church of Christ.dcclxii Urging people to exercise caution and to not believe everything you read is not the same as disparaging the internet as a source of information.  

“Under Elder Cook’s counsel, FairMormon and unofficial LDS apologetic websites are anti-Mormon sources that should be avoided. Not only do they introduce to Mormons ‘internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcoming of early Church leaders’ but they provide asinine ‘faithful answers’ with logical fallacies and omissions while leaving members confused and hanging with a bizarre version of Mormonism.” 

Cook did not disparage LDS apologetic websites such as FAIR. He did not advise anyone to avoid researching the Mormon Church, or its history, leaders, or doctrine. His counsel was to avoid wallowing in negative material that exaggerates, lies, or heavily focuses on the flaws of early Church leaders, and to balance it with material that supports the Mormon Church. FAIR and other apologetic websites put the cherry-picked quotes and history back into context and explain things from a believing member’s perspective. They do not “magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcoming of early Church leaders.” The CES Letter has not provided any evidence to the contrary. 

 Beyond that, “official” apologists do not exist. An apologist is merely someone who defends something. Whether or not those defenses are “asinine” is up to the individual reading them.  

 “What about the disturbing information about early Church leaders and the Church which are not magnified, or exaggerated, or invented? What about the disturbing facts that didn’t come from the flat-earthers or moon-hologramers but instead from the Church itself? Are those facts invalid when someone discovers them on the internet? What happens when a member comes across the Church’s Book of Mormon Translation essay where they learn – for the first time in their lives – that the Book of Mormon was not translated with gold plates as depicted in Sunday Schools, Ensigns, MTC, General Conference addresses, or Visitor Centers? Or the Church’s Race and the Priesthood essay where yesterday’s prophets, seers, and revelators are thrown under the bus over their now disavowed ‘theories’? Or the Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay and that the Book of Abraham and its facsimiles do not match what Joseph Smith translated? Or the Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay where they learn the real origins of polygamy and the disturbing details of how Joseph practiced it? That Joseph was married to other living men’s wives and young girls as young as 14-years-old behind Emma’s back? That God sent an angel with a drawn sword threatening Joseph? Or any of the other troubling essays, for that matter? Is this member in need of repentance for discovering and being troubled by all the inconsistencies and deceptions? Why is the member required to repent for discovering verifiable facts and for coming to the same logical conclusion about the LDS Church’s dominant narrative that Mormon historian, scholar, and patriarch Richard Bushman did? ‘The dominant narrative is not true. It can’t be sustained.’ Most of the main information and facts that I discovered and confirmed online about the Church is now found from Church sources, Church-friendly sources, and neutral sources. ‘And it is always good to keep in mind just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.’ Exactly – the exact same can be said of Mormonism and lds.org.” 

 Again, the talks discussed in earlier sections simply urged caution when reading things online or elsewhere.dcclxiii The context was clear that it was not the medium that was the problem, but the content. For example, in Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s quoted talk above, he said, “...[J]ust because something is printed on paper, appears on the internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.” He specifically referred to printed content, internet content, and audio content, and did not single out the internet as a problematic medium. It is true that there is considerable information on the internet that is true, but there is also considerable information on the internet that is not true. The advice was only to be cautious and to investigate further instead of blindly believing information. 

 Each of the pieces of information the CES Letter mentions—the translation of The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham, the Priesthood restriction for black members of African descent, LDS Church artwork, and the practice of plural marriage—have been widely discussed in Mormon publications like official Church magazines, historical journals, academic papers, books written by Church leaders, official histories of the Church, etc.dcclxiv While there are some Mormons who may not have heard this information until recently, there are other Mormons who have known of it for decades. It is understandable that those who did not know of those issues might feel shocked or hurt when they learn of them for the first time. However, the Mormon Church encourages study outside of church meetings, and they have made this information available for those who engage in that study.dcclxv 

 Cook’s talk asked the question, “If you’ve felt the Spirit in the past, can you still feel it now?”dcclxvi He then offered counsel and guidance for those who cannot and who might have lost conviction in their testimonies. In a paragraph about things that were not major sins or transgressions, he listed several things that could still lead to losing the Spirit’s presence and becoming apathetic in your devotion to the gospel of Christ. The final thing he listed was immersing yourself in things online that magnify, exaggerate, and sometimes invent untrue things about past Church leaders. When Cook spoke of repenting, it was in the context of doing things that lead to a lack of devotion to Christ and His church. The key phrase in the sentence in question was “have immersed themselves,” not “in Internet materials.” To immerse oneself is to become deeply involved in it and spend hours doing it and thinking about it. That is the issue, not simply reading something on the internet. He never suggested that anyone should repent for reading things online. He said that if you are constantly doing things that lead you away from the gospel, you should repent and turn your focus back to Christ. 

 As we covered in an earlier section, Richard Bushman clarified his quote repeatedly.dcclxvii He explained that his intended meaning was that when new information is discovered, the traditional historical narrative needs to be modified to accommodate the new information. He believes firmly that the Mormon Church is doing that. He said, “I have been using the phrase ’reconstruct the narrative’ in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.”dcclxviii Regardless, whether a reader who examines the evidence believes in the Mormon Church’s claims or not is entirely at their discretion.  

 “THE SEPTEMBER SIX: The September Six were six members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated or disfellowshipped by the Church in September 1993, allegedly for publishing scholarly work on Mormonism or critiquing Church doctrine or leadership. A few months before the September Six, Elder Boyd K. Packer made the following comment regarding the three ‘enemies’ of the Church: ‘The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.’— BOYD K. PACKER, ALL-CHURCH COORDINATING COUNCIL, MAY 18, 1993” 

 The members of the September Six were excommunicated for multiple reasons, but it is notable that five of the six are connected to the same problematic book, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism.dcclxix This book contained multiple essays about female Priesthood ordination, polygamy, and the Mormon doctrine of Heavenly Mother that were controversial in nature and called for actions that contradicted the counsel of Mormon Prophets and Apostles. Maxine Hanks, one of the Six, was the editor of the volume and contributed a chapter.dcclxx She confirmed that she and five of the other contributors to the book were later called before Church disciplinary councils for teaching apostasy. All six were eventually excommunicated from the LDS Church.dcclxxi Three of those other five contributors are members of the September Six: D. Michael Quinn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, and Lynne Whitesides.dcclxxii A fourth contributor, Margaret Toscano, is the wife of another member of the September Six, Paul Toscano.dcclxxiii When their local Church leadership were looking into what she was teaching about female priesthood ordination, they discovered a controversial presentation he gave at the Sunstone Theological Symposium in 1993. This speech led to his own excommunication.dcclxxiv There is more to each of their excommunications than simply writing those essays, but the book does appear to be the starting point of investigation for many of them. The final member of the September Six is Avraham Gileadi, whose case was entirely separate from the others. He accused the others of calumny and making “spurious claims” in a blog post, asking them to stop including him as one of their group.dcclxxv Gileadi was excommunicated because he taught a different interpretation of Isaiah than what the Mormon Church teaches.dcclxxvi Gileadi and Hanks have since been rebaptized into the Mormon Church.dcclxxvii Anderson, meanwhile, attended her ward/congregation until her recent death, though she was denied permission for rebaptism.dcclxxviii 

 Each of these individuals either publicly criticized Mormon Church leaders or challenged Church doctrine.dcclxxix This behavior falls under the umbrella of “apostasy” in the LDS Church. A notice from the Church Newsroom explains the policy in more detail: “Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent others from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.”dcclxxx 

 Boyd K. Packer did not call anyone “enemies,” as the CES Letter claims. He called them “dangers,” and the talk then explained what he meant by that. The danger he spoke of was in sympathizing so much with those three groups that Mormons turn away from revealed doctrine and truth.dcclxxxi Many years later, on the same PBS documentary that asked Dallin H. Oaks to clarify past remarks, Packer was asked to clarify this statement. He said, “…[I[t’s very simple—down some of those paths, you have a right to go there, but in the Church you don’t have the right to teach and take others there without having some discipline. And that’s simply because down the road, there’s unhappiness.”dcclxxxii Other Mormon leaders have also subsequently spoken out about the danger that comes with sympathizing so strongly with others that you end up falling away from the gospel, and the need for a balance between empathy and orthodoxy.dcclxxxiii  

 The Mormon Church hires scholars and intellectuals. Some notable examples include the historians in the Church History Department, who help photograph, write, transcribe, and maintain the material at the Church History Catalog, the Joseph Smith Papers project, and the Saints project. They also commissioned experts from various fields to write the Gospel Topics Essays. To suggest that they punish intellectuals is a statement unsupported by the facts. 

 “STRENGTHENING THE CHURCH MEMBERS COMMITTEE (SCMC): The spying and monitoring arm of the Church. It is secretive and most members have been unaware of its existence since its creation in 1985 after Ezra Taft Benson became president. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland admitted it still exists in March 2012. The historical evidence and the September Six points to SCMC’s primary mission being to hunt and expose intellectuals and/or disaffected members who are influencing other members to think and question, despite Elder Holland’s claim that it’s a committee primarily to fight against polygamy.” 

 The hyperbolic language employed by the CES Letter gives an inaccurate picture of this committee and what purposes it serves. It is not “the spying and monitoring arm” of the Mormon Church. The committee was formed in or around 1985 by Ezra Taft Benson, then President of the LDS Church. However, it has much earlier roots than that, as it fulfilled a request made by Joseph Smith from Liberty Jail in 1839 (D&C 123:1–15). This request was to form a committee to keep track of those who persecute the Church, including those who print libelous content about it and its members. In a press statement explaining this committee, the First Presidency said, “Because the Church has a non- professional clergy, its stake presidents and bishops have varied backgrounds and training. In order to assist their members who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities of the Church. The Strengthening Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. … They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.”dcclxxxiv  

 The First Presidency statement came as a response to a leaked memo directed to the members of the committee from a member of the President Bishopric.dcclxxxv This memo was sent in mid 1990 and leaked in late 1991. It referred to claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse experienced by members of the Church amid the Satanic Panic of the 1980s-90s. This was a period in which many people were hypnotized by their therapists, who inadvertently implanted into their patients false memories of enduring ritual sexual abuse, torture, and occult activities as children. These acts were often alleged to be perpetrated by daycare workers or prominent members of the community.dcclxxxvi  

 In 1993, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks “explained that local leaders are informed by church headquarters about members who may possibly be violating church standards. The church’s Strengthening Members Committee pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership, or other problems. That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the church. … Elder Oaks said the information comes with no instructions to take specific action. … He explained that LDS scriptures have long taught that general and local church leaders are responsible to see that members stick to approved church doctrine when they teach or speak, to weed out those who persist in preaching false doctrine or criticizing leaders. But that doesn’t mean members can’t differ with their leaders or express personal opinions, he said. … Elder Oaks said disagreements between leadership and members have occurred since the church began. ‘But the issue isn’t disagreement, it’s how you handle it,” Oaks said.”dcclxxxvii He further clarified that the committee “‘is a way of keeping busy bishops informed. But it is up to the bishop to handle it. Bishops don’t report back. … As a justice, one of my duties was to train judges on how to be judges. But I didn’t tell them what verdict to reach. Bishops are trained (by general authorities) and know how this (procedure) works.” In 2012, Mormon Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland explained that, as far as he was aware, its primary purpose has been to defend against the predatory practices of polygamist off-shoot sects.dcclxxxviii  

 The CES Letter does not clarify what “historical evidence” points to the Committee’s “primary mission being to hunt and expose intellectuals and/or disaffected members who influence others to think and question.” Some critical ex-members of the LDS Church pretended to be believing Mormons while attempting to destroy the testimony of other members.dcclxxxix This Committee was designed to prevent that scenario, as well as others, from happening, as well as to answer questions from local lay ministry who did not having training in areas members needed help with. The September Six is also not evidence of any such “hunt,” as was discussed in an earlier section. The Mormon Church employs many scholars and intellectuals, and did not attempt to rid the Church of them in the 1990s. Oaks pointed out that taking disciplinary action against six local members in a church of what was then 8 million worldwide members was not a purge against intellectuals and critical thinkers.dccxc While it is understandable that some readers may feel uncomfortable from learning about this Committee and its purposes, it could just as easily be seen as something positive.  

  “WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKS THE DEBATE IS OVER: N. Eldon Tanner, first counselor in the First Presidency, gave a First Presidency Message in the August 1979 Ensign that includes the following statement: ‘When the prophet speaks the debate is over.'” 

  1.  Eldon Tanner did indeed write a message saying that, though the CES Letter does not include the context of the quote. Tanner’s message was that Mormons should not look to science or other sources to back up the moral guidance that their prophets give them.dccxci The Word of Wisdom was used as an example. He explained that while modern science has confirmed that things like tobacco use are detrimental to one’s health, Mormons follow the Word of Wisdom because it was a commandment given to them through their prophets. When it comes to commandments and moral issues, there should not be any debate over how to interpret the will of God, because that is a prophet’s calling.

 Tanner based his message around a talk given by Elaine Cannon, the Young Women’s General President.dccxcii She gave the same line in the same context: “Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over. So I urge us all to provide powerful unity as women for those things we can agree upon—family, chastity, accountability to the Lord, responsibility in the community, sharing the gospel.” After this talk, Cannon was visited by Spencer W. Kimball, the current President of the LDS Church. He asked her not to phrase it that way again, because it could sound to some as though Mormons did not have their agency to choose for themselves and were being coerced into following their leaders’ counsel.dccxciii He wanted it to be clear that, while he believed he had the authority to speak for God, Mormons were not forced to accept his words. 

Something similar was once published in an old copy of the LDS Church’s then-official magazine, The Improvement Era. In the June, 1945 issue, an anonymous section titled “Ward Teachers’ Message for June, 1945” contained the following paragraph: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”dccxciv This caused “much concern among many inside and outside of the Church.”dccxcv When a concerned citizen wrote a letter to the President of the Church at the time, George Albert Smith, he agreed with the concern. He noted that it was a source of great agitation and embarrassment to the leaders of the Mormon Church, and that it never should have been published as written. He also explained that it was contrary to the position of the Church, which is that each individual should gain for him/herself a testimony of the gospel, work out their own salvation with Christ, and be personally responsible to God for their own actions.dccxcvi 

 Two of these three quotes were given in the context of saying that, when it comes to moral issues and the commandments of God, Mormons should not argue with their Prophets because they have the authority to speak for God on those issues. The third quote was explicitly disavowed by the current Mormon Prophet himself and called an embarrassment. All Mormons are encouraged to discover for themselves if they believe their church is the true church of God or not (Moroni 10:4–5). They are encouraged to pray, study, and seek out the “best books” to learn from (D&C 88:118, D&C 90:15, D&C 109:7 & 14). 

 “Some things that are true are not very useful + Censorship + Deceptively altering past quotes + Prioritizing tithing before food and shelter + It is wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true + Spying and monitoring on members + Intellectuals are dangerous + ‘us versus them’ rhetoric + When the prophet speaks the debate is over + Obedience is the First Law of Heaven = Policies and practices you’d expect to find in a totalitarian system such as North Korea or George Orwell’s 1984; not from the gospel of Jesus Christ. As a believing member, I was deeply offended by the accusation that the Church was a cult. ‘How can it be a cult when we’re good people who are following Christ, focusing on family, and doing good works in and out of a church that bears His name? When we’re 15 million members? What a ridiculous accusation.’ It was only after seeing all of the problems with the Church’s foundational truth claims and discovering, for the first time, the SCMC and the anti-intellectualism going on behind the scenes that I could clearly see the above cultish aspects of the Church and why people came to the conclusion that Mormonism is a cult.” 

 The restatement of these issues is negatively skewed against the Mormon Church. The bulk of these issues have already been discussed in previous responses. The CES Letter did not previously mention any “us versus them” rhetoric, so it unclear to what it is referring in this paragraph.  The CES Letter also did not previously mention the talk titled “Obedience: The First Law of Heaven” by William D. Oswald. Oswald’s message was that our obedience to the commandments of God becomes our armor against the forces of evil.dccxcvii It is unclear what the author of the CES Letter found objectionable about this message. 

 It is odd that the CES Letter claims the Mormon Church is similar to a totalitarian regime when it is a church that is entirely voluntary to join or leave; which encourages its members to gain as much education as they can; encourages them to pray and gain their own testimonies and form their own opinions; and encourages them to allow every man or woman their own agency to make their own decisions and form their own beliefs. None of those things would be allowed under such a regime. Joseph Smith once said of the members of the Mormon Church, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”dccxcviii Again, this is not something you would hear in a totalitarian system. 

 The definition of the word “cult” is “a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.”dccxcix Under this definition, any religion around the world could be considered a cult. In the pejorative sense, cults do not allow members to leave easily, whenever they’d like. The Mormon Church does. Mormons are counseled specifically not to shun family and friends who leave, unlike in many cults. Mormons also do not worship their leaders, encourage blind faith, engage in illegal activities, or isolate its members from their loved ones. Given these things, it is difficult to see how the Mormon Church could be labeled a cult.  

 Regardless of the CES Letter’s claims or its author’s apparent dislike of the Mormon Church, the evidence presented in this Letter is broadly taken out of context and often twisted into a caricature of the truth. Readers can and should investigate the claims and make up their own minds about what they believe, rather than relying on the CES Letter as a source of factual information.

  • References

    dccxlvi. See Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” Teaching Seminary: Preservice Readings, August 22, 1981, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dccxlvii. See Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” 1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, August 16, 1985, pg. 11, online at archive.org.

    dccxlviii. The full text of the verse reads: “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.” 

    dccxlix. The text of this verse reads: “But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.” 

    dccl. See Brian C. Hales, “Sealings to Legally Married Women,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed March 25, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org. 

    dccli. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage,” Church History Topics, accessed March 25, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclii. See Gregory L. Smith, M.D., Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions About the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: FARMS and Brigham Young University, 2005): 52–53, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org; Brian C. Hales, “Plural Marriage Teachings,” Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, accessed March 25, 2024, online at josephsmithspolygamy.org. 

    dccliii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Agency and Accountability,” Topics and Questions, accessed March 25, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org.

    dccliv. See Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” 1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, August 16, 1985, pg. 24–25, online at archive.org. 

    dcclv. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary,” Church Newsroom, July 20, 2007, online at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

     dcclvi. See Quentin L. Cook, “Can Ye Feel So Now?General Conference address, October 2012, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclvii. See Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “What is Truth?CES Devotional, January 13, 2013, online at youtube.com. 

    dcclviii. Randall L. Ridd, “The Choice Generation,” General Conference address, April 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclix. Quentin L. Cook, “Choose Wisely,” General Conference address, October 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org.

    dcclx. For a few examples of the way LDS leaders address criticisms against the Church, see James E. Faust, “The Abundant Life,” General Conference address, October 1985, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Thomas S. Monson, “May You Have Courage,” General Conference address, April 2009, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclxi. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” April 5, 2020, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclxii. For the current number of missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see Jared Turner, “Church announces 36 new missions; increase of time allowed to start paperwork,” KUTV News, November 1, 2023, online at kutv.com. For the push to investigate for themselves whether the LDS Church is true, see Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Chapter 5: Use the Power of the Book of Mormon,” Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, accessed March 26, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclxiii. See Quentin L. Cook, “Can Ye Feel So Now?General Conference address, October 2012, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “What is Truth?CES Devotional, January 13, 2013, online at youtube.com; Neil L. Andersen, “Joseph Smith,” General Conference address, October 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclxiv. For one example, here is a brief sampling of some of the sources that reference Joseph Smith’s use of a personal seer stone in Mormon Church official publications and other works by notable Mormons before the CES Letter was updated to its current version. See the following: David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: David Whitmer, 1887): 12, online at archive.org; B. H. Roberts, “The Probability of Joseph Smith’s Story,” Improvement Era 7, no. 6 (April 1904): 417, 419–421, online at archive.org; B. H. Roberts, “Chapter VII: The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon,” in New Witnesses for God, Volume 2: The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News, 1920): 107–112, 114–115, online at archive.org; Francis W. Kirkham, “The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon,” Improvement Era 42, no. 10 (October 1939): 631–632, online at archive.org; Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1956): 225–226; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “A Peaceful Heart,” The Children’s Friend (September 1974), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift and Power of God,” Ensign (September 1977), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Kenneth W. Godfrey, “A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign (January 1988), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign (July 1993), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Stephen D. Ricks, “Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence,” Journal of Mormon Studies 2, no. 2 (July 31, 1993): 201–206, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu; Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Juedo-Christian Prophet” (Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, 2000), online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Lesson 10: Joseph Smith–History 1:55–65,“ in Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, accessed March 26, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,“ Ensign (January 2013), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, December 30, 2013, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; and John W. Welch, “Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, 2nd edition, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017) 126–228, online at byustudies.byu.edu.  

    dcclxv. See Keith A. Erikson, “A Pattern for Learning Church History by Study and Faith,” Church History, accessed March 27, 2024, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Keith A. Erikson, “Understanding Church History by Study and Faith,” Ensign (February 2017), online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Boyd K. Packer, “’To Be Learned Is Good If…’General Conference address, October 1992, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; Marlin K. Jensen, “Making a Case for Church History,” in Preserving the History of the Latter-day Saints, ed. Richard E. Turley Jr. and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2010): 1–18, online at rsc.byu.edu. 

    dcclxvi. See Quentin L. Cook, “Can Ye Feel So Now?General Conference address, October 2012, online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclxvii. See Daniel C. Peterson, “Richard Bushman and the Fundamental Claims of Mormonism,” Sic et Non blog, July 16, 2016, online at patheos.com; Stephen O. Smoot, “What Does Richard Bushman Believe About the Book of Mormon?Ploni Almoni: A Latter-day Saint Blog, July 15, 2020, online at plonialmonimormon.com; John Dehlin, “Richard Bushman Reaffirms his Testimony of ’Angels, Plates, Translations, Revelations,’Mormon Stories, July 19, 2016, online at mormonstories.org. 

    dcclxviii. Daniel C. Peterson, “Richard Bushman and the Fundamental Claims of Mormonism,” Sic et Non blog, July 16, 2016, online at patheos.com. 

    dcclxix. See ed. Maxine Hanks, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992). Among its contributors, D. Michael Quinn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, and Lynn Whitesides all contributed chapters to this book. Paul Toscano’s wife, Margaret, also contributed a chapter, which led to her local Church leadership investigating both her and her husband. Paul was excommunicated as one of the September Six in 1993, while Margaret Toscano was excommunicated in 2000. 

    dcclxx. See Maxine Hanks, “XIV: Sister Missionaries and Authority,” in Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, ed. Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992): 315–334. 

    dcclxxi. See Maxine Hanks, “LDS Women’s Authority and the Temple: A Feminist FHE Discussion with Maxine Hanks,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 46, online at dialoguejournal.com. Four of them were among the September Six: Hanks, Lavina Fielding Anderson, D. Michael Quinn, and Lynne K. Whitesides. Two others were eventually excommunicated as well: Janice M. Allred in 1995, and Margaret Merrill Toscano in 2000. 

    dcclxxii. See D. Michael Quinn, “XVII: Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843,” in Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, ed. Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992): 365–409; Lavina Fielding Anderson, “IX: The Grammar of Inequity,” in Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, ed. Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992): 215–230; and Lynne K. Whitesides, a contributor to “XII: Emerging Discourse on the Divine Feminine,” in Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, ed. Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992): 261.  

    dcclxxiii. See Margaret Merrill Toscano, “XVIII: Put On Your Strength O Daughters of Zion: Claiming Priesthood and Knowing the Mother,” in Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, ed. Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992): 411–437. 

    dcclxxiv. See Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Where Mormonism’s ’September Six’ are now,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 2014, online at archive.sltrib.com for information about Church leaders initially investigating Margaret Toscano before discovering Paul Toscano’s behavior. For information about what Paul said in his speech that was so controversial, see Paul James Toscano, “Chapter 9: All is not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church,” in The Sanctity of Dissent (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1994): 153–176, online at web.archive.org. 

    dcclxxv. See Avraham Gileadi, “Responses to Wikipedia Article Dated 12th June 2012,” Avraham Gileadi Testimony blog, June 14, 2012, online at avrahamgileaditestimony.blogspot.com. 

    dcclxxvi. See Bruce D. Porter, “Avraham Gileadi, The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation with Interpretive Keys from the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 4, no. 1 (1992): 40–51, online at scholarsarchive.byu.edu. 

    dcclxxvii. See Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Where Mormonism’s ’September Six’ are now,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 2014, online at archive.sltrib.com. 

    dcclxxviii. See Peggy Fletcher Stack, “’September Six’ writer-editor who was denied reentry into the LDS Church dies,” The Salt Lake Tribune, October 30, 2023, online at sltrib.com. 

    dcclxxix. See Staff Writer, “Mormons Penalize Dissident Members,” The New York Times, September 19, 1993, online at nytimes.com.

    dcclxxx. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Church Responds to Church Discipline Questions,” Newsroom, June 11, 2014, online at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org.  

    dcclxxxi. See Boyd K. Packer, Untitled Speech, All-Church Coordinating Council Meeting, May 18, 1993, online at web.archive.org. Packer said, “There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right. The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals. Our local leaders must deal with all three of them with ever-increasing frequency. In each case, the members who are hurting have the conviction that the Church somehow is doing something wrong to members or that the Church is not doing enough for them. …When members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty-bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them. We then become their advocates—sympathize with their complaints against the Church, and perhaps even soften the commandments to comfort them. Unwittingly, we may turn about and face the wrong way. Then the channels of revelation are reversed. Let me say that again: then the channels of revelation are reversed. In our efforts to comfort them, we lose our bearings and leave that segment of the line to which we are assigned unprotected. … If we are not very careful, we will think we are giving comfort to those few who are justified and actually we will be giving license to the many who are not. … There are many things that cannot be understood nor taught nor explained unless it is in terms of the plan of redemption. The three areas that I mentioned are among them. Unless they understand the basic plan—the premortal existence, the purposes of life, the fall, the atonement, the resurrection—unless they understand that, the unmarried, the abused, the handicapped, the abandoned, the addicted, the disappointed, those with gender disorientation, or the intellectuals will find no enduring comfort. They can’t think life is fair unless they know the plan of redemption. … Only when they have some knowledge of the plan of redemption will they understand the supposed inequities of life. Only then will they understand the commandments God has given us. If we do not teach the plan of redemption, whatever else we do by way of programs and activities and instructions will not be enough.” 

    dcclxxxii. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “President Packer Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary,” Newsroom, July 20, 2007, online at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dcclxxxiii. For one such example, see Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Second Half of the Second Century of Brigham Young University,” University Conference speech, August 23, 2021, online at speeches.byu.edu. 

    dcclxxxiv. See Church News Archives, “First Presidency statement cites scriptural mandate for Church committee,” The Church News, August 22, 1992, online at thechurchnews.com. 

    dcclxxxv. See Glenn L. Pace to Strengthening Church Members Committee, memorandum, July 19, 1990, “Ritualistic Child Abuse,” online at content.libsyn.com. 

    dcclxxxvi. See David Frankfurter, “The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious-Studies Data,” Numen 50, no. 1 (2003): 108–109, online at jstor.org; “Ritual child abuse accusations in the 1990s,” FAIR, accessed March 28, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dcclxxxvii. Matthew S. Brown, “Church Isn’t Conducting a ’Purge’, LDS Apostle Says,” The Deseret News, October 2, 1993, online at deseret.com. 

    dcclxxxviii. See “Question: Does the Strengthening Church Members Committee still exist?FAIR, accessed March 28, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org.

    dcclxxxix. For a notable example, look to the founders of MormonThink, a website critical of the LDS Church. See “A FairMormon Analysis of the critical website MormonThink.com,” FAIR, accessed March 28, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org.

    dccxc. Matthew S. Brown, “Church Isn’t Conducting a ’Purge’, LDS Apostle Says,” The Deseret News, October 2, 1993, online at deseret.com. 

     dccxci. See N. Eldon Tanner, “First Presidency Message: ‘The Debate is Over,’Ensign (August 1979), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dccxcii. See Elaine Cannon, “If We Want to Go Up, We Have to Get On,” Ensign (November 1978), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dccxciii. See Duane Boyce, “‘Yes, It’s True, But I Don’t Think They Like to Hear it Quite That Way’: What Spencer W. Kimball Told Elaine Cannon,” Meridian Magazine: Latter-day Saints Shaping Their World, June 25, 2019, online at latterdaysaintsmag.com. 

    dccxciv.Ward Teachers’ Message for June, 1945: ’Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church,’” Improvement Era 48, no. 6 (June 1945): 354, online at archive.org.

    dccxcv. See “When the Prophet Speaks, Is the Thinking Done?FAIR, accessed March 28, 2024, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org.  

    dccxcvi. See Editor, “A 1945 Perspective,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 36–39, online at dialoguejournal.com. 

    dccxcvii. See William D. Oswald, “Obedience: The First Law of Heaven,” Ensign (January 2008), online at churchofjesuschrist.org. 

    dccxcviii. See John Taylor, “13. Vastness of the Wisdom and Intelligence of God—Impotency of Man to Govern Righteously,” in The Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, ed. G. D. Watt, J. V. Long (Liverpool, UK: Daniel H. Wells, 1865): 57–58, online at fairlatterdaysaints.org. 

    dccxcix. See “Cult,” Dictionary.com, accessed March 28, 2024, online at dictionary.com.

The CES Letter Timeline

2012

October 9

Quentin L. Cook’s talk was titled “Can Ye Feel So Now?” and the subject was about the spiritual health of the members of the church. In one paragraph of Cook’s talk, he stated “Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.” Runnells’ response to Cook’s talk was satirical. He wrote, “I am one of those formerly spiritually lost and “apostate” souls whose testimony was destroyed by falsehoods I found on the evil internetz. But on Saturday night, following your advice at General Conference, I repented of my disillusionment, and it totally worked.”

    2012

    November 15

    Runnells posted on an ex-Mormon Reddit saying that his wife was a TBM (True Believing Mormon) and still took their children to church. He stated that wanted “to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism…”

      2013

      March

      At the invitation of a CES director and friend of Runnell’s grandfather, Runnells began drafting a letter outlining his issues with the Mormon Church. Runnells shared a draft of the document on the ex-Mormon Reddit asking for feedback and advice, supposedly on how to make his arguments irrefutable.

        2013

        April

        Early in the month Runnells posted a final draft of his letter on Reddit and invited the members of the ex-Mormon forum to “personalize it to yourselves to give to your TBM [True Believing Mormon] loved ones.” Later in the month, Runnells sent his letter titled “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony” to the unnamed CES director and friend of his grandfather. Tom Phillips, an anti-Mormon, posted Runnells letter to mormonthink.com.

          2013

          June

          FAIRMormon, whose name changed in 2021 to FAIR, began to publish various responses to the issues that Runnells raised in the CES Letter.

            2013

            July 30-31

            Runnells posted on the ex-Mormon Reddit forum asking for help in responding to the FAIRMormon’s posts that responded to the CES Letter.

              2013

              August

              Runnells launches the website cesletter.com. The website contains a thumbnail image of the CES Letter: Why I Lost My Testimony he completed in April 2013. It also contains some of the crowdsourced responses to the critiques of the CES Letter.

                2015

                February 11

                Runnells posted on Reddit that he had concerns that the subtitle “Why I Lost My Testimony” was “too scary or off-putting” to Mormons who were considering reading the letter. He asked the forum if they had new subtitle suggestions. Runnells dropped the subtitle entirely.

                  2015

                  July-September

                  On the ex-Mormon forum of Reddit, an individual complained that they couldn’t get their mother to read the CES Letter because the first page was asking for money. Runnells stated that this individuals’ mother wasn’t ready for the information in the CES Letter and “the fact that your mom is rejecting this over donations shows that she’s looking for any excuse not to move forward with it.” In September Runnells posted on Reddit saying that “the target audience are the fence sitters.”

                    2016

                    April 17

                    The Mormon Church called Runnells to a disciplinary council to discuss apostasy. Before being excommunicated, Runnells resigned his membership in the church. He recorded the disciplinary council and held a press conference immediately following the meeting.

                      2017

                      December 3

                      Runnells released a new version of the CES Letter. According to the website, the major change was the softened tone. Other readers have found that sources that have been debunked or changed were removed and new sources, whether they fit the argument or not, have replaced them.

                        2023

                        In order for an organization to be tax-exempt, the IRS requires that the organization must file the proper paperwork showing that it is organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes. Tax-exempt purposes include “charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.” The organization must also prove that none of its earnings go to “private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family.” Because the tax-exempt status of the CES Letter Foundation was revoked in 2023, it must be concluded that it does not meet the requirements by not operating for tax-exempt purposes and/or because the money the the CES Letter Foundation goes directly to its founder–Jeremy Runnells.

                          nullnullnullnullnullnull
                          • 2012

                            circle
                          • 2012

                            circle
                          • 2013

                            circle
                          • 2013

                            circle
                          • 2013

                            circle
                          • 2013

                            circle
                          • 2013

                            circle
                          • 2015

                            circle
                          • 2015

                            circle
                          • 2016

                            circle
                          • 2017

                            circle
                          • 2023

                            circle

                          2012

                          Jeremy Runnells Posted a Response to Elder Quentin L. Cook’s October 2012 General Conference Talk on Reddit

                          Historical Context

                          What Critics Are Saying

                          Response to Critics View

                          Quentin L. Cook’s talk was titled “Can Ye Feel So Now?” and the subject was about the spiritual health of the members of the church. In one paragraph of Cook’s talk, he stated “Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.”

                          Runnells’ response to Cook’s talk was satirical. He wrote, “I am one of those formerly spiritually lost and “apostate” souls whose testimony was destroyed by falsehoods I found on the evil internetz. But on Saturday night, following your advice at General Conference, I repented of my disillusionment, and it totally worked.” info Information Sources: cancel https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/can-ye-feel-so-now?lang=eng https://web.archive.org/web/20230206064628/https://www.reddit.com/comments/117djp/_/c6k1sq5/?context=999

                            2012

                            Runnells Posted on the Ex-Mormon Reddit Asking for Advice on How to Save His Children from Mormonism

                            Historical Context

                            What Critics Are Saying

                            Response to Critics View

                            Runnells posted on an ex-Mormon Reddit saying that his wife was a TBM (True Believing Mormon) and still took their children to church. He stated that wanted “to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism…” info Information Sources: cancel https://web.archive.org/web/20230126163346/https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/138z13/how_do_i_save_my_kids_from_mormonism/

                              2013

                              Runnells Begins to Draft a Document Describing Why He Lost His Testimony of the Mormon Church

                              Historical Context

                              What Critics Are Saying

                              Response to Critics View

                              At the invitation of a CES director and friend of Runnell’s grandfather, Runnells began drafting a letter outlining his issues with the Mormon Church. Runnells shared a draft of the document on the ex-Mormon Reddit asking for feedback and advice, supposedly on how to make his arguments irrefutable.

                                2013

                                Runnells Completes the CES Letter: Why I Lost My Testimony

                                Historical Context

                                What Critics Are Saying

                                Response to Critics View

                                Early in the month Runnells posted a final draft of his letter on Reddit and invited the members of the ex-Mormon forum to “personalize it to yourselves to give to your TBM [True Believing Mormon] loved ones.”

                                Later in the month, Runnells sent his letter titled “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony” to the unnamed CES director and friend of his grandfather. Tom Phillips, an anti-Mormon, posted Runnells letter to mormonthink.com.

                                  2013

                                  FAIRMormon Published Responses to the Issues Raised in the CES Letter: Why I Lost My Testimony

                                  Historical Context

                                  What Critics Are Saying

                                  Response to Critics View

                                  FAIRMormon, whose name changed in 2021 to FAIR, began to publish various responses to the issues that Runnells raised in the CES Letter.

                                    2013

                                    Runnells Crowdsourced Responses to the CES Letter: Why I Lost My Testimony Responses Written by FAIRMormon

                                    Historical Context

                                    What Critics Are Saying

                                    Response to Critics View

                                    Runnells posted on the ex-Mormon Reddit forum asking for help in responding to the FAIRMormon’s posts that responded to the CES Letter.

                                      2013

                                      Runnells Created the Website cesletter.com

                                      Historical Context

                                      What Critics Are Saying

                                      Response to Critics View

                                      Runnells launches the website cesletter.com. The website contains a thumbnail image of the CES Letter: Why I Lost My Testimony he completed in April 2013. It also contains some of the crowdsourced responses to the critiques of the CES Letter.

                                        2015

                                        2015 Runnells Renamed the CES Letter: Why I Lost My Testimony

                                        Historical Context

                                        What Critics Are Saying

                                        Response to Critics View

                                        Runnells posted on Reddit that he had concerns that the subtitle “Why I Lost My Testimony” was “too scary or off-putting” to Mormons who were considering reading the letter. He asked the forum if they had new subtitle suggestions. Runnells dropped the subtitle entirely. info Information Sources: cancel https://web.archive.org/web/20230308172349/https://np.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/2vh6z1/new_ces_letter_subtitle/

                                          2015

                                          Runnells Comments on the Target Audience for the CES Letter

                                          Historical Context

                                          What Critics Are Saying

                                          Response to Critics View

                                          On the ex-Mormon forum of Reddit, an individual complained that they couldn’t get their mother to read the CES Letter because the first page was asking for money. Runnells stated that this individuals’ mother wasn’t ready for the information in the CES Letter and “the fact that your mom is rejecting this over donations shows that she’s looking for any excuse not to move forward with it.” In September Runnells posted on Reddit saying that “the target audience are the fence sitters.” info Information Sources: cancel https://web.archive.org/web/20230130232715/https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3ep5hn/my_mom_agreed_to_read_ces_letter_and_then_didnt/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230313172649/https://www.reddit.com/comments/3jb3r6/_/cunsnx2/?context=999

                                            2016

                                            Jeremy Runnells Resigns His Membership in the Mormon Church

                                            Historical Context

                                            What Critics Are Saying

                                            Response to Critics View

                                            The Mormon Church called Runnells to a disciplinary council to discuss apostasy. Before being excommunicated, Runnells resigned his membership in the church. He recorded the disciplinary council and held a press conference immediately following the meeting. info Information Sources: cancel https://archive.org/details/JeremyRunnellsLDSChurchCourtFINALHD1080p https://web.archive.org/web/20230221175502/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFhZswHykuM https://web.archive.org/web/20230209234443/https://gephardtdaily.com/local/author-jeremy-runnells-resigns-from-lds-church-at-excommunication-hearing-in-american-fork/

                                              2017

                                              2017 Runnells Released CES Letter 2.0

                                              Historical Context

                                              What Critics Are Saying

                                              Response to Critics View

                                              Runnells released a new version of the CES Letter. According to the website, the major change was the softened tone. Other readers have found that sources that have been debunked or changed were removed and new sources, whether they fit the argument or not, have replaced them. info Information Sources: cancel https://web.archive.org/web/20230126201216/https://cesletter.org/updates/CES-Letter-2.0.html

                                                2023

                                                The CES Letter Foundation Non-Profit Status was Revoked by the IRS

                                                Historical Context

                                                What Critics Are Saying

                                                Response to Critics View

                                                In order for an organization to be tax-exempt, the IRS requires that the organization must file the proper paperwork showing that it is organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes. Tax-exempt purposes include “charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.” The organization must also prove that none of its earnings go to “private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family.” Because the tax-exempt status of the CES Letter Foundation was revoked in 2023, it must be concluded that it does not meet the requirements by not operating for tax-exempt purposes and/or because the money the the CES Letter Foundation goes directly to its founder–Jeremy Runnells. info Information Sources: cancel https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/inurement-private-benefit-charitable-organizations https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/an-analysis-of-the-financial-incentives-in-attacking-the-restoration/#footnote25sym

                                                  Timeline

                                                  keyboard_arrow_down