Is the CES Letter Reliable?

The CES Letter has become one of the most well-known critiques of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Written by Jeremy Runnells, it presents a long list of concerns about church history, doctrine, and leadership. For many, it has raised serious doubts, but is the CES Letter actually a reliable source of information? When examined closely, several issues arise regarding its methodology, accuracy, and overall intent. To understand what is the CES letter Mormon, it is essential to explore the specific critiques it presents.

The Gish Gallop Technique

One of the main criticisms of the CES Letter is that it employs a well-known fallacious debate tactic called the Gish Gallop. This term, named after creationist debater Duane Gish, refers to overwhelming an opponent with a flood of weak or misleading arguments, making it difficult to adequately respond to each one. The CES Letter presents a barrage of criticisms, but the sheer volume of claims does not necessarily mean they are valid. As RationalWiki explains:

“The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.”

By using this approach, the CES Letter does not invite honest discussion but rather seeks to overwhelm the reader with doubt. Many of its claims have been debunked individually, yet the document continues to circulate with little regard for factual corrections. This leaves one to ask, when was the CES letter written, and what was its initial intent? The lack of clarity in these foundational questions reflects the manipulative nature of the document.

Errors and Misrepresentations

Beyond its debate tactics, the CES Letter contains several factual errors and misrepresentations. One example is its argument about Book of Mormon geography. The author claims that Joseph Smith fabricated Book of Mormon place names from locations near his home in upstate New York. However, many of the supposed parallels either did not exist during Joseph Smith’s time or were not known to him. Even the author of the CES Letter later admitted that this was one of the weakest points in the document, considering removing it entirely. Despite this, the argument remains part of the CES Letter, demonstrating a lack of intellectual honesty.

Another example is its treatment of Joseph Smith’s character. The CES Letter selectively presents negative portrayals while ignoring the context, positive accounts, and faith-promoting aspects of his life. This method of selective evidence—highlighting only the information that supports a specific narrative—is a hallmark of biased and unreliable sources. Mormon CES Letter critiques often miss the broader context, which paints a much more nuanced view of Joseph Smith’s life and actions.

The CES Letter’s Intent

A crucial question to ask when evaluating the CES Letter’s reliability is: What is its goal? Unlike objective scholarly critiques, which analyze historical and doctrinal issues from a neutral standpoint, the CES Letter’s purpose appears to be purely faith-destroying. Instead of encouraging open-ended exploration, it presents LDS beliefs in the worst possible light, often with emotional appeals and inflammatory language. It does not seek to understand; it seeks to convince members to leave the Church. This leads to a further question: What is the CES letter Mormon trying to accomplish beyond just presenting doubts?

Anthropologist Manu Padro, who is not a member of the Church, described this type of approach as a form of manipulation:

“They are trying to coerce you into a situation where they can bombard you with so many doubt-provoking questions that they can cause your resolve to collapse and your identity to fall apart. Inside of that vacuum, created by an act of psychological manipulation, they hope to implant their own belief system.”

This highlights a key issue: an honest pursuit of truth should not rely on manipulation, fear, or deception. Any legitimate investigation into religious history should present both strengths and weaknesses, allowing individuals to make informed choices. The CES Letter does not do this. The Mormon CES Letter summary reflects a one-sided approach that fails to offer balanced discourse on the issues.

Faith and Unanswered Questions

The CES Letter capitalizes on unanswered questions, but it is important to recognize that faith inherently involves uncertainty. Every religion has aspects that cannot be proven with absolute certainty, and if all spiritual matters could be scientifically verified, faith would no longer be necessary. As Fiona and Terryl Givens explain in The God Who Weeps:

“The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart… There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice.”

This means that the presence of questions or doubts does not automatically invalidate faith. The CES Letter demands answers to everything but does not acknowledge that faith has always required a balance between belief and uncertainty. CES letter debunking addresses this issue by recognizing that not all questions have clear-cut answers, and that’s a part of the faith journey.

Ethical Concerns with Anti-Mormon Literature

Another issue to consider is whether it is ethical to use tactics that deliberately erode faith without offering a constructive alternative. Many who leave the Church due to the CES Letter find themselves in a spiritual vacuum, unsure of where to turn next. The document tears down belief but does not replace it with anything meaningful. Mormonism Explained encourages a more thoughtful approach to understanding the complexities of faith, without resorting to the manipulative tactics found in the CES Letter.

Some critics argue that the Church has a responsibility to address every claim in the CES Letter, but this is an unrealistic expectation. Refuting a Gish Gallop takes significantly more effort than creating one. As RationalWiki points out:

“It’s always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again.”

For those who are sincerely seeking answers, there are many faithful scholars and historians who have engaged with these questions in a fair and balanced way. Resources like Bamboozled by the CES Letter by Michael R. Ash and the work of faithful LDS scholars provide in-depth responses to these issues without resorting to manipulative tactics. For anyone interested in CES Letter debunking, these sources provide a much-needed balance.

Conclusion

So, is the CES Letter reliable?

When examined closely, the answer is no. The document relies on a fallacious debate tactic (Gish Gallop), contains numerous errors and misrepresentations, selectively omits important context, and appears to have the primary goal of leading members away from the Church rather than encouraging honest exploration. Furthermore, it does not acknowledge that faith inherently involves unanswered questions and does not offer a meaningful alternative to belief.For those who encounter the CES Letter, the best approach is to slow down, research each claim individually, and seek balanced perspectives. Mormonism Explained is a resource that provides context and understanding for many of the claims made by the CES Letter. Faith does not require ignorance, but it does require discernment. Rather than allowing a flood of doubts to dictate belief, members should take the time to explore these issues thoughtfully, recognizing that real truth-seeking involves both questions and faith.

About Mormonism Explained

Mormonism Explained is a resource that was designed to provide objective and factual information about Mormonism, its history, doctrines, and policies. Our team of researchers consults experts and primary sources to present factual information on a variety of topics relevant to the Mormon Church.

Tags