In 2012, Jeremy Runnells was struggling with questions about LDS history that he couldn’t reconcile with what he had learned growing up. He had served a mission, gone to BYU, and lived his life inside of Mormonism, but the sources he was reading didn’t line up with the version he’d been taught.
When he spoke with a Church Educational System director about it, he was asked to write his concerns in one place so they could review them together. He sat down and did exactly that. He pulled notes, checked references, and laid out the issues in a document that ended up more than eighty pages long. He sent it back expecting a follow-up. The follow-up never came. That unanswered list of questions eventually became known online as the CES Letter.
In April 2013, he uploaded the document online under the title “Letter to a CES Director.” The file spread fast because it pulled together problems that members usually encounter one at a time. Runnells later said he wrote it to understand why official narratives never matched the sources. The format made it easy to share which resulted in the document going viral in ex-Mormon circles because it organized all the pain points of the church in one shot.
While the letter serves as a compilation of criticisms about the church’s origins and foundational claims. Church-friendly outlets argue it reads more like a bill of accusations than a sincere request for answers. Either way, it forced thousands of members to confront issues that most had never studied in depth.
What does the CES Letter contain?
The CES Letter doesn't focus on just one issue. It moves through a wide range of problems that members usually hear about in isolation. When you see them lined up side by side, the scope feels different. The document hits history, doctrine, translation claims, and the church’s own internal timelines.
Each section follows the same pattern:
1. Here’s the claim
2. Here’s the source
3. Here’s why it doesn’t fit the official narrative.
Some of the Issues
The Book of Abraham: Runnells cites the 1960s discovery that the surviving papyri were standard Egyptian funerary texts. They do not mention Abraham. Egyptologists translated them and found nothing remotely connected to Joseph’s claims. Facsimile explanations supplied by Joseph match no academic translation. Critics call this direct evidence that Joseph presented his own interpretations as ancient fact. Apologists respond with two main theories. The missing papyri theory says Joseph translated from scrolls that burned in the Chicago fire. The revelatory theory says the text came by inspiration and the papyri only acted as a spiritual trigger. Scholars like John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein argue that spiritual texts do not follow the same rules as academic translation. Critics say these explanations only exist because the linguistic evidence failed.
Anachronisms: Runnells points to animals and technologies that archaeology does not support for pre-Columbian America, like horses, chariots, steel, and wheat. He quotes LDS manuals that once treated these as literal history and then explains how modern scholarship disputes every one of them. The church’s defenders often respond with semantic arguments. They say horse might refer to a tapir or that steel meant hardened metal. They also rely on the argument from silence. Maybe archaeology hasn’t found the evidence yet. Critics say that after decades of research across the Americas, the silence carries weight.
The Kinderhook Plates: In 1843, six small plates were presented to Joseph as an ancient find. William Clayton’s journal records Joseph saying they contained a history of a descendant of Ham. Later tests showed the plates were a nineteenth century hoax made with acid. Critics say Joseph’s willingness to treat them as ancient reveals the same translation instincts he applied to other texts. Church-focused rebuttals say Joseph never created a formal translation and that the Clayton quote may reflect enthusiasm more than Joseph’s own words. The tension never really goes away.
Polygamy: Runnells lists marriages to teenagers and to women who were already married to other men. He quotes Helen Mar Kimball’s own statements about being sealed to Joseph at fourteen. Critics argue that these facts undermine the church’s claim that polygamy was a divine commandment. Most religious defenders try to place the practice in historical context. They say not all sealings were sexual or that plural marriage should be viewed through nineteenth century norms. They also emphasize the incomplete nature of the record. Critics point to the secrecy, the public denials, and the doctrinal shifts as evidence of intentional concealment.
Treasure-digging: The CES Letter quotes court documents and eyewitness accounts that describe Joseph using a seer stone to locate buried treasure. This makes many readers uneasy because the same stone later became part of the Book of Mormon translation process. Church defenders say folk magic was normal in that era and that many people believed in divining practices. Critics say the overlap between treasure hunting and scripture production undermines the idea that his revelatory method came from God.
The letter also takes on questions about the First Vision, priesthood restoration timelines, changes in doctrine, alterations to temple ceremonies, the priesthood ban for people of African descent, and the difference between public teachings and private practice. The tone is relentless. It moves from point to point with citations that many members have never seen. For people raised in the church, the cumulative effect can feel disorienting.
Rebuttals
Rebuttals come from a range of sources. FairLDS publishes long, point-by-point responses to almost every claim. Latter-day Saint Magazine says the CES Letter uses what they call a "gish-gallop" approach. They argue that it overwhelms readers with volume instead of walking through arguments carefully. Public Square Magazine pushes a similar idea. They say the document relies on selective framing and that many of its quotes look worse when pulled out of the historical setting. Their writers insist that if readers saw the full context, most issues would soften or resolve. (The article also questions Runnel's motives)
One of the most common rebuttals is the idea that the CES Letter misrepresents scholarship. FairLDS often says Runnells ignores academic work that supports LDS positions. Examples show up in discussions about the Book of Mormon and ancient American civilizations. Defenders claim there are parallels between the text and ancient Near Eastern culture patterns. Critics push back by pointing out that similarities appear because Joseph Smith lived in a time when writers drew on biblical language to tell American stories. They also note that most of these “parallels” rely on speculative connections that would never pass peer review outside church-sponsored research.
Another standard rebuttal is the argument that Runnells expects prophets to behave like modern historians. When the letter brings up issues such as inconsistent First Vision accounts or evolving doctrines, defenders often respond by saying that memories shift and that early leaders never claimed perfect clarity. Church-friendly sources say it is unfair to judge nineteenth century figures by twenty-first century standards of record keeping. Critics say this misses the point. The problem is not imperfect memory. The problem is the claim of divine authority paired with narratives that change in convenient ways.
A related defense is the “line upon line” argument. When the CES Letter highlights doctrinal changes, defenders say revelation comes gradually. They point to examples like the development of the Word of Wisdom or the evolving priesthood structure. Critics argue that this explanation works only when changes are small. When the changes rewrite entire claims about God, priesthood authority, temple practice, or race, the “line upon line” framing feels inadequate.
Some rebuttals focus on tone. Latter-day Saint Magazine claims the CES Letter is written to provoke doubt rather than encourage honest inquiry. They say the structure gives readers the impression that every issue is settled against the church, even when academic debate exists. Critics counter that the tone of apologetic responses often does the same thing in reverse. They present every issue as manageable even when the evidence leans heavily against official narratives. Both sides accuse the other of being selective, but the core concern for many readers is credibility. Who appears to be making the cleaner argument. Who seems to be forcing a conclusion.
A frequent apologetic claim is that Runnells uses sources that are biased or hostile. Defenders sometimes argue that ex-Mormon communities exaggerate problems, and they say church critics rely on worst-case interpretations. Critics respond that many of the CES Letter’s sources come from the church’s own documents, journals, autobiographies, and official manuals. They point out that much of what shocks readers comes directly from primary material that the church previously kept out of mainstream lesson manuals.
Another common rebuttal frames the CES Letter as incomplete. Apologists often argue that it raises questions without presenting the best answers. FairLDS and LDS-aligned scholars claim that if people read a wider range of work, they would see a more balanced picture. Critics respond that these answers require a long chain of assumptions, special pleading, or models that redefine basic words like translation, revelation, or history.
The Book of Abraham is a clear example. Defenders say Joseph translated missing scrolls or produced revelation unrelated to the surviving papyri. Critics point out that these explanations arose only after Egyptologists translated the papyri and found nothing related to Abraham. The shift from “translation” to “inspired text” looks like a retroactive fix rather than an original claim. For many readers, the question becomes simple. Which explanation fits the timeline. Which explanation feels like something scholars would accept if it came from any other religion.
The treatment of polygamy follows a similar pattern. Defenders argue that historians cannot be sure which sealings were sexual and which were not. They say nineteenth century marriage norms were different and that modern readers misunderstand early Mormon culture. Critics respond that the paper trail contradicts those claims. When journals, affidavits, and church records point to secrecy, denials, and shifting doctrine, it becomes hard to dismiss the concerns as cultural misunderstandings.
The debate over treasure-digging also shows the two sides talking past each other. Defenders say folk magic was normal, that using seer stones was part of the culture, and that Joseph eventually abandoned those practices. Critics point to the similarity between his treasure-seeking method and the method he used to produce scripture. For them, it is not about early American culture. It is about whether prophetic claims rely on the same techniques Joseph used while being paid to locate nonexistent treasure.
Rebuttals also appear in discussions of the Book of Mormon’s historical claims. Apologists say the lack of archaeological support is not evidence against the text. They argue that we have barely scratched the surface of ancient American archaeology. Critics say we have more than a century of excavation and research. They argue that the absence of items like horses, steel, chariots, and pre-Columbian wheat is exactly what you would expect if the Book of Mormon is a modern creation rather than an ancient record.
The CES Letter website offers rebuttals to some of these criticisms here.
When readers compare the CES Letter to the rebuttals, they usually notice a pattern. The church’s defenders frame their explanations around possibilities.
Maybe the papyri are missing...
Maybe the translation was inspired...
Maybe the archaeology will catch up...
Critics frame their arguments around patterns. They look at how often the evidence contradicts Joseph’s claims, how explanations shift over time, and how newer information tends to weaken rather than strengthen the traditional story.
This tension is why the CES Letter remains so influential. It collects questions many people ask privately and shows how complicated the history really is. Rebuttals exist, and some are thoughtful. But the gap between possible explanations and convincing explanations is what keeps the debate alive.
CES Letter Overview Quiz:
Test how well you remember the key points from this article.
1. Who asked Jeremy Runnells to write all his concerns in one place?
2. Where did Runnells upload the CES Letter in April 2013?
3. What major issue does the CES Letter highlight about the Book of Abraham?
4. What anachronism issue does the CES Letter raise about the Book of Mormon?
5. What did later testing reveal about the Kinderhook Plates?
6. What details does the CES Letter emphasize about Joseph Smith’s polygamy?
7. What early activity does the CES Letter connect to Joseph Smith’s later translation practices?
8. What is one of the most common apologetic critiques of the CES Letter?
9. What pattern do readers often notice when comparing critics and apologists?
10. Why does the CES Letter remain influential?
Comments
Post a Comment