The CES Letter, authored by Jeremy Runnells, is a critique of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) that raises various concerns about the church's history, doctrine, and claims. It has been a significant document for those questioning the faith. Here is my little blog post, addressing some common known rebuttals, I have come across, to the CES Letter.
The CES Letter, has ignited wide, profound and long-going discussion and introspection among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), many ex-members, anti-Mormons and scholars of religious studies. As someone who joined the church and lived it, loved it, clinged to it and the doctrine for from 2013 to 2024, and now as an ex-mormon, with great love for the church, even still, and as a writer, I have decided to take my time, and in this blog post, present a a bit of my reflective examination into the CES Letter and its historical and doctrinal questions and concerns pinpointed at the foundations of the LDS faith. I want to go into the rebuttals I have heard or read and spark a discussion. I am not trying to prove anything, rather have more be talked about that I have not come across.
A large amount of rebuttals against the CES letter have emerged since it came to existence, offering counterpoints that delve into historical context, doctrinal interpretations, and the broader implications of the church's teachings. This blog post seeks to explore parts of the CES letter and as I have said, mostly the these rebuttals, illuminating their impact on our understanding of LDS Church history and theology.
One significant area of rebuttal addresses the historical context and interpretation of events and documents questioned by the CES Letter. Runnells challenges the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and other foundational texts, pointing to perceived inconsistencies and anachronisms. Critics argue that these issues often stem from selective or flawed interpretations of evidence.
For instance, the CES Letter highlights the lack of archaeological evidence corroborating the Book of Mormon's narrative. Rebuttals suggest that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence –Which I, for one, have a hard time with, as an agnostic… I have witnessed many painting those who are firm on needing evidence to believe, as naive and selfish, which can also be said on the non-believers side. But, projection of those feelings cause chaotic discourse. Evidence in manys hearts, seems greater than blind belief and faith, anyway– they contend that the Book of Mormon’s historicity cannot be conclusively affirmed or refuted by current archaeological methods. Moreover, proponents note that early LDS Church leaders acknowledged the limitations of contemporary archaeological knowledge and maintained that future discoveries might yet illuminate aspects of the Book of Mormon’s historical claims.
Further critique involves the claim that Joseph Smith, the Church's founder, was influenced by contemporary sources such as the King James Bible and early American treasure hunters. Rebuttals have been known to argue that such influences do not imply deceit but rather reflect the way Smith integrated prevailing knowledge into a new religious paradigm. They maintain, and I agree greatly, but to a point, that Smith’s contributions should be understood within their own historical and cultural environment, rather than judged by modern criteria. However, I would like to add that modern criteria would have a more in depth and logical way of dismissing many of the harmful historical and cultural paradigms of the past.
The CES Letter also takes issue with several core doctrines of the LDS Church, including the nature of God– which I, as an agnostic, have found to be difficult for me to keep up with– the concept of eternal progression, and the practice of polygamy… Rebuttals to these doctrinal critiques often involve clarifying or contextualizing LDS beliefs.
A point of contention is the nature of God and the concept of the Godhead. The trinity, The CES Letter argues that LDS doctrine diverges from traditional Christian views of the Trinity. In response, LDS scholars claim that the church’s view of the Godhead matches early Christian beliefs about the distinct roles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They believe that the LDS understanding restores the original Christian teachings instead of changing them.
The practice of polygamy is another area of significant criticism. And I have so many feelings and thoughts on that byt to keep this short and simple Ill stick to keeping my own feelings out… The CES Letter questions why polygamy was practiced and then stopped. Rebuttals say polygamy was used because of certain historical needs and was later abandoned as social and legal norms changed. They claim the church’s current stance follows today's ethical standards and legal requirements. One thing I will add regarding my own feelings is I feel it's wrong for plural marriage to continue to be practiced within sealings, its real, its still existent and its crazy.
There is some broader responses out there to the CES Letter, and they highlight its focus on specific issues within the context of religious defense. Critics argue that by concentrating on particular controversies, the CES Letter may miss the larger contributions of the LDS Church.
For example, some responses emphasize the positive influence of the LDS Church on individuals and communities. Despite historical controversies, the church has greatly contributed through humanitarian aid, educational programs, and the promotion of family values.
Additionally, responses often highlight the personal and spiritual experiences of church members, suggesting these experiences provide a meaningful answer to historical and doctrinal criticisms. They argue that personal faith and spiritual insights are crucial to understanding the church's importance beyond factual analysis.
The CES Letter has sparked intense discussion about the history and beliefs of the LDS Church. While its criticisms have led to deep reflection and debate, the rebuttals provide essential perspectives that address historical interpretations, doctrinal clarifications, and broader contextual issues. Engaging with these rebuttals allows for a more nuanced understanding of the LDS Church's teachings and historical development. This ongoing discourse highlights the dynamic nature of religious scholarship and the continuous quest for truth within the realm of faith, illustrating the ever-evolving conversation between belief and historical understanding.
Comentarios