Introduction
This website responds to criticisms and allegations raised by the CES Letter.
What is the CES Letter?
The CES Letter is a collection of criticisms aimed at weakening faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). It presents selective information, uses partial truths, and leaves out important context to misrepresent historical events and doctrine, creating an impression of the church as misleading or untrustworthy.
The document is essentially a catalog of claims challenging the Church’s truthfulness, with many arguments dating back decades.
Example criticism #1
In its first section, the CES Letter mentions that "" have been made to the Book of Mormon, with no further explanation. On its face, this claim is alarming given that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS religion. How could a divinely inspired text undergo so many alterations and still be considered reliable scripture?
Let's explore what the CES Letter fails to mention:
The vast majority of Book of Mormon changes relate to punctuation, spelling, and grammar
The Original Manuscript had almost no punctuation and a myriad of spelling errors, typical of oral dictation. See it for yourself.
For example, 17 "changes" are found when comparing 1 Nephi 1:1 in the Printer's Manuscript to the corresponding verse in the modern edition:
"I Nephi haveing been born of goodly parents therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father & haveing seen many afflictions in the cours of my days nevertheless haveing been highly favored of the Lord in all my days yea haveing had a great knowledg of the goodness & the mysteries of God therefore I make a record of my procedings in my days"
I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
The LDS Church has made available to the public, in their surviving entirety, photographs and transcripts of the Original Manuscript and Printer's Manuscript. Readers are encouraged to see and compare for themselves.
Phrase and wording changes include:
The most significant changes include:
That's it, folks. No doctrinal changes, no storyline shifts, no coverups. See a detailed analysis of changes here.
Ironically, the CES Letter has this criticism completely backwards. What's actually impressive is how few changes were made. The original manuscript of 270,000 words was written over the course of 60 days. Aside from punctuation/spelling/grammar, it was nearly a perfect first draft with no revisions common to works of similar length or complexity.
This kind of "100,000 changes" shock claim is intended to catch the reader off guard, to chink at their faith. They are left to assume the worst, when in reality, the Book of Mormon we have today is nearly identical to the first and final draft of the original translated text. That, in itself, should cause one to pause and wonder.
Example criticism #2
Spoiler: this next claim is so absurd, the CES Letter author considered removing it entirely as it weakens his Church-is-false narrative. One must wonder: how sincere was he in finding answers to his questions?
The CES Letter claims that Joseph Smith borrowed geographical names and features from his surroundings for the Book of Mormon, suggesting that he authored the book himself. At first glance, this allegation might seem troubling. If the Book of Mormon contains names similar to places near Joseph Smith’s home, does that imply he fabricated the text using familiar landmarks?
Examining the Evidence
The primary evidence presented is a map created by Vernal Holley, which overlays Book of Mormon place names onto a map of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada.
However, this approach has significant flaws:
Selective Sampling: The CES Letter cherry-picks 20 names that sound similar while ignoring the majority of Book of Mormon names that have no correlation to local geography. Of of 86 place names in the Book of Mormon,
Geographical Inconsistencies: The locations of these names on Holley’s map don’t align with the internal geography described in the Book of Mormon. For instance, the city of Morianton should be near the eastern seashore according to the text (Alma 50:25), but Holley’s map places it near the western sea.
Temporal Anachronisms: Many of the towns cited either didn’t exist during Joseph Smith’s time or were known by different names. For example:
Alma, New York: Established after the Book of Mormon was published.
Antioch, Ohio: Founded in 1833, three years after the Book of Mormon’s publication.
Boaz, West Virginia: Named in 1878.
4. Common Biblical Names: Names like Jerusalem, Jordan, and Shiloh are biblical and widely used in many places. It’s more plausible that these names were derived from the Bible rather than local geography.
Statistical Probability
\
When you consider the vast number of place names across a large geographic area, it’s statistically inevitable that some names will resemble each other. This is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy—drawing a target around random data points after the fact to create the illusion of a pattern.
\
For instance, there are over 20 towns named Springfield in the United States. Claiming that a fictional story set in Springfield is based on any one of them simply because of the shared name ignores the commonality of such names.
\
Linguistic Analysis
\
Moreover, many Book of Mormon names have Semitic or Egyptian linguistic roots consistent with its claimed ancient origins:
• Alma: Once thought to be a feminine Latin name, it’s now known from the Bar Kokhba documents (c. AD 130) to be a male Hebrew name, something Joseph Smith couldn’t have known.
• Mulek: Resembles the Hebrew word melek, meaning “king.”
• Sariah: A female Hebrew name found in ancient Jewish texts.
\
It’s highly improbable that Joseph Smith, with his limited education and resources, could have fabricated these names with authentic ancient Near Eastern etymologies.
\
Logical Considerations
\
Let’s apply some logical reasoning:
• No Evidence of Map Use: There’s no historical evidence that Joseph Smith consulted maps extensively. In fact, given his family’s financial situation, it’s unlikely he had access to detailed regional maps.
• Consistency and Complexity: The Book of Mormon contains intricate narratives, consistent geography, and complex doctrines. Creating such a work by randomly pulling names from local maps would be an extraordinary feat for someone of Joseph’s background.
\
Conclusion
\
The claim that Joseph Smith borrowed local geographical names to create the Book of Mormon doesn’t withstand critical scrutiny. The supposed similarities are superficial and, in many cases, historically and geographically inaccurate.
\
When we look at the evidence objectively, we find that:
• The parallels are coincidental and statistically insignificant.
• Many of the cited place names didn’t exist during Joseph Smith’s time.
• The linguistic authenticity of Book of Mormon names points to ancient origins rather than 19th-century fabrication.
\
In essence, the argument relies on selective evidence and ignores the broader context. As with any serious inquiry, it’s crucial to examine all the facts before drawing conclusions. The Book of Mormon’s depth, consistency, and complexity suggest origins far beyond the capabilities of a young man in rural 19th-century America.
Why is it called "CES Letter"?
The document gets its name from its origin story. In 2013, the author addressed his compilation of criticisms to a Church Educational System (CES) director who had offered to answer questions about his doubts. CES is the Church's educational organization that oversees seminaries and institutes for youth and young adults.
The letter format gives the document an air of sincerity—as if it were merely an honest seeker's questions rather than what it actually became: a polished collection of anti-Mormon arguments designed to destroy faith. The author never received answers from the CES director (who likely recognized the document's true nature), but the letter took on a life of its own when published online.
Interestingly, the "letter" has evolved significantly from its original form. What began as a PDF document has been revised multiple times, with the author adding new criticisms, removing weak arguments when exposed, and polishing the presentation. This ongoing revision process reveals that the document is less about sincere questions and more about building a case against the Church.
Who wrote the CES Letter?
Jeremy Runnells authored the CES Letter, which he claims was written as "one Latter-day Saint's honest quest to get official answers from the LDS Church on its troubling origins, history, and practices." However, a comprehensive 2024 investigation by researchers Michael W. Peterson and Jacob Z. Hess reveals a very different story about the letter's true origins and purpose.
The Real Story Behind the "Sincere Questions"
Contrary to the widely-promoted narrative of an earnest truth seeker with honest questions, the evidence shows that:
Runnells was actively attacking the Church online for six months before writing the letter. Under an online persona he later acknowledged as his own, he repeatedly bashed the Church and its beliefs—hardly the behavior of someone genuinely seeking answers.
He showed no genuine interest in receiving answers through proper channels. Neither before nor after creating the letter was there any documented evidence of sincere attempts to get answers from local Church leaders. Instead, he sought feedback from some of the Church's most hostile critics before publishing.
The original essay's tone was hostile and disparaging. Rather than displaying the curiosity one might expect from genuine questions, the letter (especially in its less-polished original form) showed unmistakable contempt toward the faith.
He immediately promoted the letter online. Instead of waiting for the CES director's response to his supposed questions, Runnells almost immediately began marketing the letter to a broad audience, revealing his true intent.
A Pattern of Deception
The investigation documented several troubling patterns:
Copied content from other anti-Mormon sources: Significant portions of the original CES Letter were lifted from well-known anti-Latter-day Saint writings.
Manipulative behavior with Church leaders: When asked to answer for his attempts to persuade others to leave the faith, Runnells used these meetings not to seek resolution but to further attack the Church and promote his "nobody-will-answer-my-questions" persona.
Extensive marketing and branding efforts: Over the years, Runnells has invested enormous effort in promoting, expanding, and monetizing his attack on the Church through speaking engagements, merchandise, and continuous revisions to strengthen arguments when previous claims were debunked.
Personal attacks on critics: When faithful members raised concerns about his tactics, rather than addressing the substance of their objections, Runnells often employed mean-spirited personal attacks.
Understanding the Author's True Motivations
One YouTube commenter reflected the common perception: "From my understanding, the letter wasn't intended to be this big exposure of the church; Jeremy Runnells had legitimate questions that he was seeking answers to." This is exactly what Runnells wanted people to believe. The carefully crafted "just asking questions" narrative served as what researchers called a "shiny wrapper"—packaging designed to give the essay unique credibility and bypass readers' natural defenses.
The truth is that the CES Letter was never about sincere questions from a troubled believer. From the beginning, it was a calculated attack designed to destroy faith while masquerading as honest inquiry. Understanding this deception is crucial for anyone who has encountered or may encounter this heavily-promoted document.
Last updated