In 2013, the CES Letter was written as a compilation of concerns about Mormon history, doctrine, and truth claims. In the years since, it has circulated widely online and is often presented as a definitive takedown of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For some readers, it raises difficult questions; for others, it feels like an overwhelming barrage of accusations.
This post is a CES Letter summary that explores why many observers and scholars—particularly those who remain committed to their faith—see it as relying heavily on emotional impact while ignoring important nuance. The goal isn’t to dismiss sincere questions, but to distinguish between good scholarship and persuasive presentation.
What Is the CES Letter?
The CES Letter started out as a document intended to outline a series of concerns about the truth claims of the Church. Jeremy Runnells, the former Mormon who wrote the CES Letter, structured it as a long list of questions and arguments covering a wide range of topics, including:
- The translation and historicity of the Book of Mormon
- The origins of the Book of Abraham
- Accounts of the First Vision
- Priesthood restoration narratives
- Polygamy and the character of early Church leaders
- Book of Mormon DNA and archaeology
- Doctrinal consistency over time
At first glance, the document’s huge length and breadth is pretty striking. It attempts to gather nearly every major criticism of Mormonism into a single, accessible resource. For many readers encountering these issues for the first time, the cumulative effect can feel overwhelming, as if the weight of evidence is simply too large to ignore.
However, commentators who focus on CES Letter debunking point out that the structure of the document is also one of its main flaws.
The Power of Accumulation
One of the CES Letter’s most effective rhetorical strategies is what might be called “argument by accumulation.” Rather than exploring a small number of issues in-depth, it presents as many questions and concerns as it can in rapid succession, often repeating questions to perhaps pad out the volume. Each section introduces a new problem, often without fully engaging potential explanations, current research, or counterarguments.
This approach has a powerful psychological effect. When readers are presented with many unresolved questions at once, they may conclude that the overall case must be strong—even if any one claim might not be as strong as it appears.
Critics of the CES Letter argue that this method prioritizes emotional response over honest inquiry. Many topics in the document are highly complex and require space to examine context, competing interpretations, and scholarly debate. Instead, the document moves quickly from point to point, leaving little room for that kind of exploration.
Framing and Tone
Another defining feature of the CES Letter is its tone. The document is framed as a sincere inquiry from a member struggling with his faith, but its language usually reflects certainty. Questions are often posed in ways that suggest a predetermined conclusion, guiding the reader toward skepticism.
For example, rather than neutrally presenting multiple interpretations of an event, the letter may highlight details that seem contradictory or problematic while leaving out information that could soften or contextualize those concerns. This is not uncommon in persuasive writing, but it does mean that the author’s intention is less about “just asking questions” and more about making accusations. That shows some dishonest presentation on the author’s part, especially since it’s been proven that he crowdsourced talking points for the letter on an ex-Mormon Reddit forum rather than expressing his personal concerns.
Tone matters because it shapes how information is received. A reader unfamiliar with the broader scholarly or historical context may interpret a hostile source as the only explanation there is, when that can be far from the truth.
Selective Use of Evidence
Many who have studied the same topics addressed in the CES Letter PDF point out that its use of evidence is selective. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the facts presented are false; rather, it means that they’re often incomplete.
Historical questions rarely have black-and-white answers. They involve fragmentary records, evolving narratives, and interpretive frameworks that differ depending on one’s assumptions. Faithful scholars, secular historians, and critics often examine the same data but arrive at different conclusions.
The CES Letter tends to favor the most cynical interpretations of history while giving little attention to alternative explanations. For instance, it may present discrepancies in historical accounts as inherently discrediting, without acknowledging that variations in retelling are common in historical documentation. Similarly, it may treat unresolved questions as decisive evidence against faith, rather than as areas of ongoing study.
Complexity vs. Simplicity
One of the most significant differences between the CES Letter and more scholarly approaches to the same issues is the handling of complexity. Academic discussions of religious history often deal with competing theories and the limited evidence. Religious scholars resist simple conclusions—if they didn’t, they’d likely be discredited for emotional bias.
The CES Letter, by contrast, frequently simplifies complex topics into clear-cut problems. While this makes the document more accessible, it also obscures important nuances. Readers may come away with the impression that certain questions have straightforward answers—usually negative—when in reality they are the subject of ongoing debate.
This simplification is part of what makes the Letter persuasive. Pithy jabs are easier to absorb and pass along than layered, nuanced discussions. But clarity achieved through omission is really just bias in disguise.
Emotional Impact and “Shock Value”
Perhaps the most discussed aspect of the CES Letter summary is its emotional impact. For many readers, encountering its contents for the first time can be overwhelming. The document is often described as “shocking,” not necessarily because it presents new information, but because of how that information is framed and concentrated.
By placing controversial topics side by side—polygamy, translation methods, historical inconsistencies—the letter creates a cumulative emotional effect. The reader is not just evaluating individual claims, but being deliberately influenced towards confusion or betrayal.
This is where “shock value” becomes an issue. The argument is not that the issues themselves are insignificant, but that their presentation amplifies their emotional weight. When complex questions are rapidly presented without context or resolution, they can feel more damning than they might in a fuller discussion.
Faithful Responses and Nuanced Engagement
It’s important to note that many of the questions raised in the CES Letter have already been addressed extensively by faithful scholars, historians, and theologians. These responses tend to differ in tone and approach. Rather than presenting a rapid-fire list of concerns, they typically focus on individual issues in depth, exploring multiple perspectives and acknowledging uncertainty where it exists.
For readers willing to engage more deeply, this broader body of work reveals a more complex picture. Some questions remain open; others have plausible explanations that may or may not be persuasive depending on one’s prior assumptions. What becomes clear, however, is that these issues aren’t as one-sided as the CES Letter suggests.
This does not mean that faith requires ignoring difficult questions. On the contrary, many believers see value in grappling with them honestly. But they also emphasize the importance of context, patience, and a willingness to consider multiple viewpoints.
The Difference Between Persuasion and Truth
At its core, the discussion surrounding the CES Letter raises a broader question: What is the difference between a persuasive argument and a true one?
Persuasive arguments are designed to convince. They use structure, tone, and selective emphasis to guide the reader toward a conclusion. Truth-seeking, by contrast, is often slower and less tidy. It involves weighing evidence, considering alternatives, and accepting that some questions may not have definitive answers.
The CES Letter summary is undeniably persuasive. Its organization, clarity, and emotional resonance make it compelling to many readers. But persuasion alone does not determine the validity of its conclusions. For those approaching the document from a position of faith, this distinction is crucial. It allows them to acknowledge the power of the argument without assuming that it’s a “smoking gun” against their beliefs.
The CES Letter Summary and Navigating Between Extremes
The CES Letter occupies a unique place in today’s discussions about Mormonism. It has introduced many people to challenging questions and sparked important conversations. At the same time, its style and structure have led some to question whether it prioritizes rhetoric over true understanding.
A balanced approach recognizes both realities. The issues it raises deserve attention and thoughtful consideration. But they also deserve to be examined in context, with an awareness of the broader scholarly and theological landscape.
Ultimately, faith and questioning need not be in conflict. For many believers, engaging deeply with difficult questions can lead not to the erosion of faith, but to its refinement. When approached with patience and openness, complexity becomes less a threat and more an invitation—to learn, to grow, and to understand more fully.
By Todd Noall, Source Expert
Todd Noall is an author and religious scholar at Mormonism Explained with a focus on the history and theology of religion.
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