Overview of "Letter to a CES Director" from a believing Latter-day Saint

It's been several years since Jeremy Runnells wrote his 84-page document describing his concerns with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our beliefs. It has since been shared by those opposed to the church in hopes of preventing people from joining, or to get people to leave. These same people get defensive when I call it an anti-Mormon document, but they don't make secret what their goal is, those sharing it are very much against the church. Some say I am being dismissive by giving it that label, but I am not, I am calling it what it is. Others say, "it's not anti-Mormon, it's just stating facts." Well, we'll get to the facts later, but you can be opposed to something without having to lie.

I am also surprised when Christians use it intending to get Latter-day Saints away from our faith.  Had they actually read it, they would also find that it is an anti-Christian document, too.

The letter is a classic example of a Gish Gallop.  It is a lot easier to make complaints to address the concerns brought up.  Even though most the arguments are weak, looking at 84 pages of them can be overwhelming.  I've often thought about writing my own Gish Gallop, except with evidences for the church, just to put things in perspective for those who like Mr. Runnells letter.

There are plenty of other more in-depth criticisms of the CES Letter, most notably from Fair Mormon, Stallion Cornell, and Michael Ash and I think overall they do a great job.  I don't intend to go so far in depth as them, but I still would like to address the points that Mr. Runnells brings up.  For shorter discussions, I recommend Kevin Christiensen's article, and Daniel Petersen's talk, both of which discuss its approach more than its content.

I already know from his responses to the above that he isn't really looking for answers.  This post is instead intended for those who have read the Letter to a CES Director and are wondering how a faithful Latter-day Saint thinks about the concerns he brings up.

With that in mind, let's jump in.  He begins with a list of questions and concerns regarding the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon

1. KJV in the Book of Mormon -- The way that the question is worded makes it sound like it wasn't just the 1769 edition of the KJV, but a specific printing that Joseph Smith owned.  However, there is no evidence that Joseph even owned a bible during the translation.  He links Wikepedia, but it only talks about how modern translations use a different methodology.  Two identical source documents, using the same translation methodology are going to have the same translation.
   There exists evidence that the Book of Mormon used a similar translation methodology as the KJV, so I would expect the Book of Mormon to be similar to the KJV bible.
2. KJV italics in the Book of Mormon -- Italicized words are necessary for it to make sense in English.  Again, if you follow the same translation methodology, then you'd add in the same italicized words.
3. JST different than Book of Mormon -- The JST is as much about restoring and clarifying doctrine than restoring actual words.  For example, the Jews and Nephites knew what "if your eye be single" means, but Joseph added "to the glory of God" because we in our day might not know that.
4. Book of Mormon DNA and title page change -- I am a descendant of William the Conqueror.  As my most famous ancestor, I might say that he is my principal ancestor.  Or maybe-- since I've done my geneology, I notice that I have mostly Danish ancestry.  So I could say they are my principal ancestors.  However, that could give people the wrong impression, that I am only descended from these people.  So saying "among my ancestors" is less likely to cause confusion.  More on DNA studies.
5. Book of Mormon anachronisms -- I see three possibilities to explain the anachronisms:  1) they really did exist, and we just haven't found them yet.  2) Nephi or Mormon used their old-world words to describe new-world items, and the translation was preserved as it was revealed to Joseph.  3) The words were different, but the translation revealed to Joseph used words more familiar to us.
   Different things may be the result of different ones of the three.  Like, 1) cement structures would have been an anachronism for people reading the Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith's day until they were discovered.  2) Peccaries are native to America, they are a new-world swine.  3) The KJV Bible mentions steel, but modern translations call it bronze.  Since the Book of Mormon translation methodology is similar to the KJV translation, I would expect the word to still come out as steel.
6. Book of Mormon and Archaeology -- John L. Sorenson (who worked with Thomas Stuart Ferguson) has identified 420 correspondences between the Book of Mormon people and the ancient people of Central America.  The letter dismisses central America as the location for the Nephite civilization.  If I dismissed Central America as the location of the Mayan empire, I'd probably be unable to find evidence they existed, too.
7. Book of Mormon locations and New England locations -- These maps bear little resemblance to Book of Mormon descriptions of their locations.  They also bear little resemblance to locations known to Joseph Smith.
8. Dissimilarities between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews far outnumber the similarities.
9. Dissimilarities between the Book of Mormon and The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain far outnumber the similarities.
10. Dissimilarities between the Book of Mormon and The First Book of Napoleon far outnumber the similarities.
    Claiming the Book of Mormon plagiarizes three different books doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  The letter makes no effort to describe why this is not a contradiction.
11. Book of Mormon and the Trinity -- The changes made by Joseph Smith do not remove the Trinitarian idea of God.  A Trinitarian could read the Book of Mormon and still see the Trinity everywhere.  Which makes sense, since they also see the Trinity in the Bible.  When we describe ourselves as non-Trinitarian, we are saying that we believe Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct individuals.  We still believe Jesus is God.  We often don't express it that way, but He is God, the Son.
12. Book of Mormon translation method -- I was always taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the Gift and Power of God.  While true, I wasn't sure how the Urim and Thummim were involved, I knew that they were part of the story somehow.  When I first learned of Joseph using his seer stone in a hat when I was 22, I expressed surprise.  And then my little sisters said, "what, you didn't know that?"
    I did not then, nor do I now believe the Church was being dishonest or deceiving.  My sisters told me that they learned about it in Seminary.  I took it instead that I was not interested in history.  It's been a long time since then, and I have become much more interested in church history and I think it is really interesting.
    "The Church" isn't some foreign entity-- we are the church.  I considered myself honest and transparent.  The fact is that I just didn't know.  Now I do, and now I can share it.

The First Vision

1. At least four accounts -- Yes!  And I think they are all very interesting.  There are four firsthand accounts, two of which were published in Joseph Smith's day.  There are an additional five recorded secondhand accounts.
2. Telling others -- I don't see any reason to believe that his family hadn't heard of the First Vision just because Joseph didn't write it down until at least 1832.
3. Purpose of praying -- In the culture of the early 1800s, joining a church and receiving forgiveness of sins are part of the same package.
4. Did Joseph already think all churches were wrong  -- Memory is a funny thing.  Remembering things differently as time goes on is pretty normal human behavior.
5. Different details in accounts -- Same as above.  Also, I don't think some of these are actually contradictions, but rather emphasizing different points about Joseph's experience.  The graphic implies that not mentioning something is a contradiction, but that's silly.  Also strange that the graphic also implies not only must one mention everything, but use the exact same words to do so?  Also odd that graphic leaves out the Wentworth Letter.
   Amazing that this letter was able to notice the differences between four accounts of the First Vision, but failed to notice any differences between the Book of Mormon, a View of the Hebrews, The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain, and the First Book of Napoleon.

The Book of Abraham

1. Age of papyrus -- Paul also claims to have written Galatians, however scholars have studied the earliest text and have dated it several hundred years after Paul could have written it.  Instead, we typically assume that the words of Paul were copied.  Why can't we assume the same here?
   There exists an another faith-positive alternative explanation:  It could be Pseudepigrapha-- a work by an unknown Jew living at that time who falsely attributed it to Abraham.  This was pretty popular at that time the papyrus has been dated to.  The Book of Abraham is also consistent with stories about Abraham that circulated in ancient times.
2. Papyrus doesn't match Book of Abraham -- Or rather, what has been found doesn't match Joseph's translation.  There could have been other scrolls, the story of Osiris could be a symbol for Abraham and Joseph is giving us the true meaning, or it really does have nothing to do with Abraham except that the Lord used it to reveal a translation of a different ancient document to Joseph.
1. This might be how Egyptologists would render it, however this is not a typical lion couch scene.  Look at the Facsimile 1 in the Joseph Smith papers.  I'm not an Egyptologist, and even I can tell that those lines match the fingers of his other hand and not the feathers of the other bird.
   One thing that the canonized version indisputably messes up is that the priest is supposed to be in front of the couch.  The man lying down has his legs (both legs visible) in front of the priest, who is in front of the couch.  This is very unusual for a typical lion couch scene.
2. The Hypocephalus appears to be highly symbolic.  I've got no problems with Joseph giving the meaning of the symbols, rather than what they literally are.
3. I think it's pretty obvious that #4 is a woman.  Therefore I think it makes sense to take this whole scene as symbolic also.
3. This point is reiterating what he just said.  For more information on the Book of Abraham from a faithful perspective, I recommend reading what Latter-day Saint Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein has to say about the Book of Abraham.
4. I find it really strange that the letter makes the claim "The Book of Abraham teaches a Newtonian view of the universe" when it obviously doesn't.  I didn't understand what Abraham 3 was trying to teach for a very long time.  Finally, I read an article that explained that it makes much more sense from a geocentric point of view, and suddenly everything fell into place.
5. Abraham 2, 4, and 5 are similar to Genesis 1, 2, 11, and 12 -- I don't really understand this complaint.  Genesis talks about the creation, and it talks about Abraham.  So Abraham can't talk about the creation either?  And he can't even talk about himself?  Why couldn't Abraham and Moses use similar words to describe the exact same things?  And given that God was their source, wouldn't we expect them to be similar?
6. Book of Abraham anachronisms -- Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Genesis?  Either changed by a later writer or a translation choice.
7. Sun receives light from Kolob?  -- Symbolism in action.  Now I'm wondering what they thought the Newtonian view of the universe is.
8. There are a lot of dissimilarities between The Philosophy of the Future State and the Book of Abraham, too.
9. Elder Holland not knowing how it was translated -- Expecting him to know is an assumption the author of the letter holds.  I do not hold such an assumption.
   They also act like the church only recently "conceded" that they do not match.  That was what the church discovered and published in the Improvement Era magazine immediately after its discovery.

Polygamy

When I first heard about Joseph's polygamy, I was surprised at first, but then the Spirit asked me, "Did you really thing that the man who restored plural marriage did not also participate in it?"

When it comes to all things plural marriage related, Brian Hales is the expert.  When I have a question, I go to his website which gives biographies on each of Joseph's wives, and discusses frequently asked questions, such as polyandry, reasons given for polygamy, and marriages to young wives.  For some background information, Brian Hales wrote a three-volume work on Joseph Smith's polygamy.  He examined and provides all known statements about Joseph's polygamy from all sources.  From faithful Latter-day Saints to antagonistic anti-Mormons, he's got everything.  

I can't decide if Mr. Runnells complaint is polygamy itself, or about how it was implemented.  He seems to argue against both, but either way, this is an emotionally-charged argument.  Polygamy is distasteful in our culture -- even in Joseph's culture.  But God isn't known to make commands that are socially acceptable.  Mr. Runnells doesn't believe such a God is worth worshiping, but Heavenly Father has proven Himself reliable in my life, and so I continue to follow and trust in Him, even if I don't understand the reasons for all of His commandments.

The letter makes the observation that plural marriage is still contained in D&C 132 despite it no longer being doctrinal.  This is a strange comment, and perhaps they don't understand what scripture is.  Animal Sacrifice and The Law of Moses is superseded by Jesus Christ and the Law of the Gospel.  Yet Leviticus is still in our Bible.  Scripture is revelation from God to man, we don't get rid of it when we receive new revelation.

They seem to try and equate Joseph Smith with Warren Jeffs, but similarities are superficial, and even the infographic cannot hide their vast differences.

Prophets

A lot of these complaints are just that our practices change in the church.  Or that prophets are imperfect.  1) That's the whole point of having prophets-- continuing revelation.  We expect change.  This doesn't make past prophets "heretics."  2) We don't claim prophets to be perfect.  In fact, we claim they are imperfect.  Also, just because one church leader says something, that doesn't make it doctrine.

1. Adam-God theory -- Brigham Young's statements don't make sense in context with other things we already know about Adam and God.  They don't even make sense in context with other things Brigham taught.  Maybe there is a way it fits in, but Brigham did not explain it, so it cannot be added to our doctrine.
2. Blood Atonement -- This was never practiced, and does not seem to have even been doctrine during Brigham Young's day.
3. Polygamy Required for Exaltation -- no it isn't.  A belief that it was from God was required, not practicing it.  Remarrying after the death of a spouse is not polygamy, otherwise everyone believes in polygamy.
4. Blacks Ban -- Did you also know the priesthood and ability to enter the Temple was restricted to the Levites for some 2,000 years?  And then the Priesthood was removed from the earth for another very long time?  Brigham Young taught that they would one day receive the priesthood.  President McKay wanted to give it to them, but said he was denied that revelation.
   It is God's authority that He delegates to us, and He sets the terms.
   Why would the government revoke our tax-exempt status because of who we choose to enter into our unpaid clergy?  I've heard this claim before, yet I cannot find a reliable source for why separation of church and state wouldn't apply here.
   I also don't know why the church would care about Stanford or other universities cutting off ties with BYU athletics.  They didn't for a full decade prior to the revelation.
   In Brazil, patriarchal blessings were used to determine lineage.  Brazilians assisted in temple construction despite knowing they could not enter.
5. Mark Hoffman -- He was a good forger.  Mr. Runnells makes it clear that he thinks prophets shouldn't be able to be tricked, that they should be more than just men (whatever that means).  I don't hold them to such standards.

Kinderhook Plates

1. "Joseph couldn't discern the fraud" -- No, he never called them out.  But he also didn't fall for the hoax -- he basically ignored them.
2. Book of Abraham -- Brings up old arguments addressed earlier.

Testimony/Spiritual Witness

1. Other religions also claim the Spirit bore witness they are true -- Occasionally perhaps, but inviting investigators and members to pray about whether our church is true and to listen for the Spirit is pretty much uniquely a Latter-day Saint thing.
2. Testimony -- the letter says it is arrogance to think we are right and others are wrong.  But I'd say it is really arrogant to reject what God revealed to my spirit just because I don't understand what God may or may not have revealed to others.
   We share history with other Latter-day Saint groups, so it makes sense if they also believe in receiving and sharing testimonies.  During my mission, sharing testimony just wasn't a thing practiced by other churches like we do.
3. Feelings -- God's method of revealing truth is not through feelings.  It is through the Spirit.  "I felt the Spirit" is just a deficiency in our language.  If I say "I feel cold" people realize that I'm not talking about an emotion.  I could just as easily say, "I heard the Spirit," and that is a common expression as well.  I may not feel or hear with my physical senses, but I do feel and hear with my spiritual senses.  There is a difference between that and feeling an emotion.
4. Revelation from God or the devil -- You can know through the Spirit.  Joseph's revelation was more of a command anyway, not really a prophecy.  Whitmer at the time of recalling this conversation believed Joseph to be a fallen prophet, and so is justifying his position.
5. Evidence and Logic -- I believe that we are responsible for our own education.  I do not believe it is the purpose of the church to teach us everything.  Even knowing the history, I still see that we have evidence and logic on our side.  I also agree that a testimony is more just spiritual experiences and feelings.  Take a look at this Anti-Mormon rejoined the church.  He not only had spiritual experiences, but the Spirit used logic to persuade him on each topic for which he had issues with the church.
6. Paul H. Dunn caught lying -- He was before my time, so I can't really say anything about he incident.  He was not the first to receive emeritus status.  What does it say when someone resorts to lying right in the middle of attacking people who believe in liars?
7. It's true though.  Sure, maybe for some people words are enough.  But what better way to learn something is true than to put what you've learned into practice?
   I disagree, it's not "lying your way into a testimony," but rather you already believe it's true, and then the Spirit confirms it to you.
   If this really were a method of "saying it until you convince yourself it's true" then that would fail to explain the times I received a negative testimony-- times where I was teaching something I believed to be true, and then the Spirit whispered to me that what I was teaching was false, and that I should stop.
8. Is the Spirit even reliable?  -- The premise of the question is that when we get false impressions, it is our fault for misunderstanding the Spirit, and therefore if we are so bad at recognizing the Spirit, then how can we be sure about other things?  Sometimes though, the Spirit does take us down wrong roads precisely because we need to learn something that is best learned through failure.  The Spirit teaches us in ways that we learn best, not what we think we need.  And likewise the Spirit teaches others in ways that they need, not in ways you or I think they need.  It is a mistake to discount the spiritual impressions others have just because yours are different.
9. Are fictional movies true if I feel the Spirit? -- As I said earlier, "feeling emotional" isn't the same as "feeling the Spirit."  That being said, even fictional movies can have true principles, and so one could feel the Spirit.

Priesthood Restoration

1. Like the First Vision, no one heard about the priesthood restoration until 1834 -- Also like the first vision complaint I don't see any reason to think he didn't teach it just because he didn't write it down.
   Speaking of First Vision accounts, the first one (recorded in 1832) also mentions the restoration of the priesthood.  Unfortunately Joseph didn't get very far and ends it shortly after Oliver Cowdery appears on the scene so we don't get more fleshed-out details besides what appears in the introduction-- that he received the priesthood by the ministering of angels.
   The Historical Introduction section in the linked Joseph Smith Papers notes that this kind of record keeping was unusual at the time.  Joseph was led by a revelation in 1830 to keep records, and they basically had to figure it out themselves.  It's no wonder then that we can't find earlier records-- it's not something people really did at the time.  It's frankly impressive we have the records that we do.
2. Ordinations as "priesthood authority" not taught until 1834 -- As above.  And if people didn't think they were receiving authority, what did they think the priesthood offices were for?  This seems an odd claim to make.
3. Although the earliest extant text of the second half of that revelation is from the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph's later history explains that the first part of the revelation was received in August 1830, and the second part was received in the following September.
4. If the restoration of the priesthood happened, it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments. -- A bold claim.  I think it is presumptuous to definitively say what would or wouldn't happen.  This is as bad as fundamentalists who say, "If evolution were real, it would be in the Bible!"  It's okay for scripture to not be all-inclusive.  You're not God.
5. Restoration of the priesthood backdated for 1830 Doctrine and Covenants -- Or was just included for the first time.
6. David Whitmer says he didn't hear about the restoration of the priesthood until at least 1834 -- If David Whitmer didn't believe they were ordained by John the Baptist, where did he believe they got their authority?  He didn't leave the church until 1838, and the reasons seem unrelated to this.  He saw the angel Moroni, and was pretty vocal about that, so I think it is strange that he didn't believe in this other angelic manifestation he was not part of.

Witnesses

1. Introduction -- Yes, the three and eight witnesses are an important part of the Book of Mormon.  "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."  We don't have to rely on just Joseph Smith's word for it.
2. Magical Worldview -- If Oliver Cowdery were instructed to translate the Book of Mormon via a divining rod, I find that no more strange than Joseph Smith using seer stones.  Well, I guess the author doesn't either.  But just because people have unscientific beliefs doesn't mean that God cannot act through us.
3. Witnesses --
1. Martin Harris -- They left out the parts where he was definitely a skeptical witness.  He took a transcription and translation to Charles Anthon and believed that he verified the translation.  He swapped out Joseph's Seer stone with a similar one and was satisfied that he was not being deceived when Joseph was confused that he couldn't translate.
2. David Whitmer -- He refuted claims that he had not seen the Book of Mormon plates.  If God told me to leave the church, I would, too.  Having been previously excommunicated, perhaps it is what David Whitmer needed.  As I said before, I believe the Spirit is our guide, and I think it arrogant to deny the spiritual experiences of others or our own.
3. Oliver Cowdery -- There was no conflict of interest after Cowdery left the church, yet he continued to affirm his testimony.
4. Second Sight -- No, we don't call it "imagination," that's what critics call it.  I would call the three witnesses experience a "manifestation."  Why the "bizarre" statements?  Perhaps enemies of the church wanted to discredit the three witnesses?  Perhaps the three witnesses responded to critics by positively and plainly claiming they saw them with their natural eyes but the letter decided to just leave these quotes out?
   The Eight Witnesses seem to be entirely left out of this criticism.  They physically saw the plates, no angels involved, and they all also testified to their reality.
5. James Strang and the Voree Plates Witnesses -- These witnesses were more like the eight witnesses.  They saw the plates, but did not see angel (as the three witnesses did).  Also at least one of the witnesses claimed it was a fraud, Samuel Graham said he assisted Strang create the plates.
6. No Document of Actual Signatures -- They would have signed the original document, which was destroyed.  Martin Harris did heft the plates prior to becoming a witness, and the only quotes about him never seeing the angel or the plates come from those seeking to discredit Martin Harris.  He was consistent in his claims that the angel appearing and showing him the plates was an event that actually happened.
7. Conclusion -- Maybe a bit odd for a conclusion section to be a list of mostly new concerns, but I'll address these questions also.
1. "The Witnesses never recanted or denied their testimonies"
• Indeed, as they say that doesn't necessarily mean anything.  But that they had a lot of incentive that they should deny but didn't might mean something.
2. Problems
• The original signed documents were destroyed with much of the original manuscript.  The witnesses continued to testify of the reality of their experience.
• Yes, everyone was either a Smith, a Whitmer (or married to one), or Martin Harris.  It's okay if you aren't satisfied, but that doesn't make their witness false.
• Yes, in 1838, not only the Three Witnesses, but all the surviving Whitmers also had left the church.  What does it say that they never denied their testimonies after having no motivation to continue?
• The signed affidavit wasn't that Joseph wasn't a polygamist-- rather that he did not engage in John C. Bennet's "spiritual wifery" claim.  And that is true.
• Joseph Smith was not duped by the Kinderhook Plates.  Those trying to catch him failed.
• I find that Strang's witnesses less impressive.  They are just a few, small plates.  One of the witnesses claimed to help him create them.  There is no claim of an angel.
• My knowledge of Shakers is pretty limited to just what The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith concerning their beliefs, and so prior to reading this letter, I hadn't heard of this Shaker's holy book before, so I did some research.  The historical background is that Philemon Stewart said he was visited by an angel, Al'sign te're Jah, who showed him a scroll and he wrote what the Angel dictated six hours each day for fourteen days.  You can find it online, and indeed the appendix is hundreds of pages of witness statements declaring the book true.
  Unlike the Book of Mormon, it was only a few years later that the book came to be ignored by the church and subsequently fell into obscurity.

Nobody has to "gamble with their lives" based on what the witnesses said about the book.  We aren't asked to take their word for it.  We are asked to read the Book of Mormon and pray and ask God if it is true, and we will receive an answer by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Then the author makes the claim that the witnesses are irrelevant anyway, since Joseph did not use the gold plates for translating.  I would say that an angel appearing, showing the plates, declaring that Joseph translated by the gift and power of God would be very relevant.  We believe God delivers his messages through prophets, not scholars.

Temples and Freemasonry

1. Endowment introduced 7 weeks after Joseph's Masonic initiation. -- Sure.  Read the Doctrine and Covenants, and you will find that basically every revelation came in answer to a question Joseph had.
2. We have true masonry -- Sounds about right to me.  Well, about as right as saying "we have true Catholicism."  We believe that Joseph restored the Church of Jesus Christ, including many ancient beliefs and practices that had become corrupted over time through lack of priesthood authority and divine revelation.
3. Why doesn't the LDS ceremony resemble earlier masonry instead of the version Joseph was exposed to? -- The endowment ceremony is not the same as the masonic ceremony.  And there are many ancient parallels that aren't found in modern masonry.
4. Freemasonry has zero links to Solomon's temple.  What's so divine about a man-made medieval European secret fraternity and its rituals? -- Nothing.  I would instead look to more ancient parallels to other ceremonies that pre-date masonry, just like I would look to beliefs that pre-date the Catholic church for evidence of a restoration.
5. Why did the Church remove 100% Masonic rituals?  What does it say about the Church if it removed something that Joseph Smith said he restored and which would never again be taken away from the earth? -- We are Latter-day Saints, not masons.  After Joseph Smith presented the endowment ceremony, he said, "Brother Brigham, this is not arranged right. But we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed."
6. Is God really going to require people to know secret tokens, handshakes, and signs to get into the Celestial Kingdom? -- Probably not literally, for the reasons cited.  Figuratively, though?  Yes, I believe so.
7. Does eternal salvation, eternal happiness, and eternal sealings of families really depend on medieval originated Masonic rituals in multi-million dollar castles? -- No.  They do depend on restored ordinances performed in temples, though.  Are good couples who want to be with their families in the next life really going to give that up because they object to God's terms?

Science

1. Death before the fall -- I'm willing to believe that there was death during the creation, and the scriptures are talking about the fall bringing death to post-creation earth.
2. Humans before Adam and Eve -- They aren't really our concern.  All we really know is that what makes us different is that our spirits are children of God.
3. Noah and other stories -- You don't have to take these stories literally if you don' t want.

Scriptures

I'm going to quote the introductory paragraph here:  "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy, child abuse, stoning disobedient children, pillage, plunder, sexism, racism, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, killing people who work on the Sabbath, death penalty for those who mix cotton with polyester, and so on."

To my Christian friends who think the letter to a CES director is so great, take a look at that paragraph.  As with the Science section, this section also reveals that it is not just an anti-Mormon document, but anti-Christian as well.  Perhaps you have been reading my response and disagree with everything I have said.  What do you think about this paragraph?  Imagine that this paragraph was instead 84 pages long, filled with these and other similar arguments?  For perspective, that's what this whole document feels like to me.

And those things do exist.  Nearly 20 years ago on a message forum, I came across a list of 100 questions and concerns about the Bible, and I had the time so I answered them all.  And here I am today!

As I said in the beginning, it is easy to make complaints, but hard to refute them.  It is easy to dismiss these questions as just another raging atheist that doesn't care about answers.  But even though they might not care, it is long and seems impressive to people not as familiar with these kind of arguments as you are.  So that's why I'm adding my response.

That being said, as usual, I'm not going into detail with my answers-- I feel that the more in-depth responses I linked at the beginning are good for that.  I just want to answer with how I feel.  So my short answer on this one:  Yes, to believe in the scriptures, we need to believe in a God that does things we disagree with.

1. D&C 132 -- Yes, that's right.  We believe that God once commanded Polygamy.  It may shock you, but the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints broke off of us.
2. Numbers 31 -- God even explains why He wants Moses to destroy the Midianite men and women: because they are to avenge the children of Israel from when the Midianites caused them to trespass against the Lord.  And yes, this is the same God that appeared in the Kirtland Temple to Joseph and Oliver, accepting it as His house.
3. 1 Nephi 4 -- Yes, just as God helped the Brother of Jared, God also helped Nephi.  It sounds like you answered your own argument.
4. Exodus 12:12 -- Just flip the argument and ask what kind of a loving God would allow innocent children to be raised in the wicked traditions of their fathers only for them to die and be punished for eternity?  Arguments in the form of "If I were God, I'd do things differently" is extremely arrogant.  Neither you or I are God.  He doesn't have to follow our limited mortal expectations.  The reason I choose to follow Him is because of His relationship with me.  Through the blood of Jesus Christ, I am saved from the destroying angel.  All those who follow Him will be saved.
5. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 -- This isn't a "kid who doesn't listen" this is a "stubborn and rebellious son" who continues to disobey even after being chastened.  Whenever I don't understand a bible verse, I like going to BibleHub and seeing what kinds of commentary exists, or look at the original language and alternate translations.  Then I can learn how severe the disobedience they are talking about.  I can also listen to the Spirit about how this may be symbolic nature of our relationship with our Heavenly Parents.
6. Exodus 35:1-2 -- Between the last one and this one, it's almost as if God is serious about these 10 commandments.  It seems He's saying "They're not the 10 suggestions."  Also, the verse is anyone who works on the Sabbath, not just those "trying to support their families."  Why make it softer than it actually is?
7. Numbers 21:5-9 -- Hey, I'm glad you're learning to look for morals in these stories.  Maybe there's a better morale... Take a look at Alma who also taught about the brass serpent, that it was a type of Jesus Christ.
8. Judges 19:22-29 -- Indeed.  But if you are looking for a lesson here, it may help to compare with Genesis 19.

I recommend reading the rest of the Bible, not just the controversial parts.  It was only then that I recognized the loving Jesus also existing in the Old Testament.  I also recognize in the New Testament the God of Israel who cannot look upon sin.  Different authors emphasize different aspects of God, but He is there, the whole time.

Other

1. Church's Dishonesty and Whitewashing Over Its History
• 2013 Official Declaration 2 Header Update Dishonesty -- The complaint is over the line "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." This is true.  We know Joseph Smith ordained men of African descent.  And we know that one day Brigham Young began teaching that they should not be ordained.  There is no documented revelation from Brigham Young.  Records are unclear why it originated.  This is not a contradiction.
• Zina Diantha Huntington Young -- If the church was really "whitewashing history in 2014" then why are you able to find a list of her husbands on Family Search, a church-run site?  Or maybe you could do a bit more searching and look at the second article that comes up for her on lds.org, a biography written in 2012 that does talk about being sealed to Joseph while remaining married to Henry Jacobs.
  So now the question is no longer "why is the church hiding information" but "why does the church provide this information in one spot, but not in another?"  I don't know the reason, but I would suspect that it has something to do with the target audience, and the message each is trying to portray.  All history is telling a story, and there exists no history that doesn't leave things out.
• Brigham Young Manual -- It didn't talk about polygamy because it is just using teachings for our time.  It would have been nice had they said that like they do in the Joseph Smith manual a decade later.
  And concerning Brigham's quote, "The only men who become gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," if you read the entire paragraph, it's clear that being willing is the requirement.
2. Church Finances
• Why does the church keep finances secret -- From my studies, it appears that the reasons have changed over time.  They did not publish finances in the late 1800s because they did not want the Federal Government to know about them.  They then published them regularly for a few decades in at the beginning of the 1900s.  At first, they published deficit spending information as a way to encourage local leaders to spend less.  However, the situation worsened and it is believed that they stopped publishing financial information since it became an embarrassment.  Eventually, the church financial situation completely turned around, and there was no longer that same incentive to publish detailed finance reports.
  I don't think they are necessary, but it's certainly possible they will again.  Although they don't provide details, the church finances are reviewed by the church auditing department, ensuring that finances are administered and recorded correctly.  This is independent of all other departments.
• Regular financial reports were from 1832-1838, 1878-1884, 1915-1959.  Detailed reports also happened irregulary, from time to time during Brigham Young's time, and again in the early 1900s.
• The City Creek Mall -- This was the first topic I shared on this blog.  Interestingly, for a church that supposedly is not transparent about our finances, you actually can learn quite a bit.  LDS charities has put out annual statements beginning in 2013.  Part of it, the most recent ones they report on the amount spent since 1985, same as the fact sheet linked in this section.  As of 2017 it is up to $2.07 billion-- comparing to the previous year shows we spent $180 million in humanitarian aid in 2017.
  Note that this is just humanitarian aid.  The Bishop's storehouse and other financial aid that is provided at the local level and is funded in other ways, such as from fast offerings-- humanitarian aid has its own line on the tithing slip.
  While humanitarian aid is funded by donations, the $1.5 billion City Creek Center was funded by the businesses owned by the church.  It is owned by Property Reserve, Inc (the commercial real estate company owned by the church) and Taubman Centers, Inc (a real estate investment trust that invests in shopping centers).  It was built over the course of several years, beginning with the purchase of property in 2003, unveiling of the concept design, and demolition in 2006, final completion in 2012.
  We are doing a lot better in our donations to humanitarian aid than when I first commented on the City Creek Center several years ago.  They will only go up if we, individual members, increase our contributions to that fund.  I think it is amazing all the things LDS Charities is already able to do.
• Hinckley's statement that "that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world." -- This is correct.  When you pay your tithing, you keep the yellow slip.  Even if you don't, at the end of the year your finance clerk will print out a copy of all the donations they recorded throughout the year.  Nowadays, you can also get this information online.  Unless you choose to publish this, this information belongs to you, and not to the world.
• Tithing -- Heavenly Father has given us everything we have.  All He asks is 10% in return.  There shouldn't be any reason to be "very disturbed" by a quote that ends by saying "The Lord will not abandon you."  The Bishop's storehouse is there to help you achieve self-sufficiency.  There isn't any reason to be ashamed to ask for help.  How is it a problem to ask for "food money" after donating your food money to the church?  Now, not only do you still have food, but you are obedient to Heavenly Father and are protected from the Devourer.
  And wasn't the complaint two bullets up that we don't do enough humanitarian aid?  Now we're doing too much?
3. Names of the Church --  You can read about name changes in this old Ensign article.  Jesus Christ gave revelation in 1838 for the name of the church.  We are led by imperfect people, but we are a church that is guided by modern revelation, so you expect revelation that makes changes.
4. Anti-Intellectualism:
• "Some things that are true are not very useful." -- It's true.  This principle is even followed strictly by the author of this letter.  It doesn't talk about miracles performed by Joseph Smith.  It doesn't go into any kind of detail about evidences for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.  It doesn't talk about the spiritual witnesses that those who entered into plural marriage received.
  Everyone who tells a story is trying to make a point.  The point of the letter to a CES director is to bring up concerns about the church.  Bringing up evidences that support the church would run counter to its point.  Likewise, bringing up the history of the Mongolian Empire would do little to advance their goal.
  The talk even brings up something that has been a hot topic in recent years-- He talks about how it is a mistake for Bishops to ask too many probing questions.  He talks about when he interviewed a young man sent home from his mission and learned that he got the idea from his Bishop.
  I don't consider our church anti-intellectual.  But I do believe in learning line upon line, precept upon precept.  I believe everything has its place, and that it's okay to learn about some things after building a foundation for "meatier" truth.
• Criticizing leaders -- From the context of his interview, it seems like he's really just saying that we need to look at the bigger picture.  We are all imperfect, even God chooses.  Standing in their way isn't going to help.
• Researching "unapproved" materials on the internet -- "Who cares whether you received the information from a stranger, television, book, magazine, comic book, napkin, and even the scary internet?  They are all mediums or conduits of information.  It's the information itself, its accuracy and its relevance that you need to focus on and be concerned with."  Indeed.  This is the message that is conveyed in the quotes provided.  Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true.
  As an aside, interesting that "relevance" makes the list for what I need to focus on and be concerned with.  This is the same advice the letter criticized Boyd K. Packer for on the previous page.
  Anyway, they turn the question on us, just because we say something doesn't mean it's true either.  This is also correct.  When it comes to spiritual matters though, you can learn of the truth from the Spirit.  That is the lesson that we teach.
• Going after members who publish or share their questions, concerns, and doubts --  The church doesn't "go after" or excommunicate people who ask questions, concerns, or doubts.  However, those who publish material that reject church leaders or act in opposition to them will be called into a disciplinary council by their local leaders and may be excommunicated.  The church doesn't need to hunt them down and expose them-- they expose their position pretty well all by themselves.
• "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over" -- The "debate" he's talking about is debate about moral issues.  Like, "is it wrong to view pornography?"  Without prophets, people can (and do) debate about it.  The prophet has spoken, and so there is no debate.   This isn't an anti-intellectual position, indeed it is accepting more information.  And it's not like we are blindly obedient, we still need to have a testimony that they are a prophet, we still need a spiritual witness that this teaching is true, and we still need to decide to follow their guidance.

Conclusion

I mentioned it earlier, but I guess I'll join in on the fun of repeating myself, and I'll expand on the story.  I first discovered that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon from the PBS miniseries "The Mormons" in 2007, a few years after my mission.  I said, "wow, where do they get this stuff?" and my younger sister asked, "what, you didn't know that?"

When I was in school, I was never interested in history.  My younger sister was.  I figured this would be something I would have learned had I been interested in history, and indeed once I thought about learning the details of the translation process it was easy to find.  No, I did not go into a panic, I just got embarrassed that I didn't know something.  Later on, after learning that a lot of other people were in my shoes, I asked all my younger sisters whether they knew about it, and how they learned.  They all said that they learned about it in Seminary class.  Either they had a different teacher than I did, or I didn't pay attention to the lesson that day.

I don't mind FairMormon, but I can understand how they can rub people the wrong way.  Reading about their origin, they're just a group of people who got tired of being pushed around online, and so they created their own message boards to push back.  Now, they have a catalog of answers that seem appropriate for people who are tired of answering the same questions all the time.  They are good at providing alternate solutions, but they live in a rough-and-tumble world, and it shows.

But this is also the same world the letter to the CES director and myself occupy.  I find in these 84 pages the same kind of complaints he gives to FairMormon--  He has a lot of assumptions about my faith that I find foreign.  His answers are not only contradictory to others of his answers, but I find many of his concerns truly bizarre.  He and I are not scholars.  We are just humans all trying to figure things out, and in the process write a bunch of our feelings on the internet.

On the other hand, I love the stuff that The Neal A. Maxwell Institute has put out.  Unlike FairMormon, they follow scholarly standards.  The Interpreter Foundation is another scholarly resource, and I read their site regularly.  This is the kind of writing that appeals to me most.

Concerning "things don't really mean what I thought they meant," I didn't have much trouble with that, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as what he says.  Joseph said he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.  People who are pointing out "translate doesn't mean translate" are really pointing out that Joseph didn't translate.  The translation was revealed to him, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a translation.  Horses, chariots, and steel are all probably related to that.  We don't know what Mormon wrote down, we only know the end translation, so we can only speculate as to what Mormon wrote.  (Did they really exist, and we haven't found evidence yet?  Did the Nephites just use these words for different things?  Or did Mormon use other words that got translated this way?)

It is really easy to gain assumptions.  It can be difficult to get rid of them, but once you do then it opens up many possibilities.  I remember leaning in my Sunday School class, that there would only be two prophets after President Benson until the second coming.  Did I lose my faith when it didn't happen after President Hinckley died?  No!  Years prior to that, I did some studying and found that there was no such teaching by the church.  I probably misunderstood whatever she was really saying.  Likewise, I had another Sunday School teacher who knew that the second coming would be April 6th, 2000.  Obviously it wasn't, and even then I knew the scriptures taught that no one knew the hour nor the day Jesus would return.  As we talked about earlier, just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true.  We are all human, and we make mistakes.  Through study and through the Spirit, we can learn the truth.

It was from the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites series I read in High School that I realized that Hill Cumorah being in New York was just an assumption I had.  Believing there were only Lamanites in the Americas at the end of the Book of Mormon was another assumption I realized I had.  I did not cling to the assumption and lose my faith, I realized that my assumption had no basis and so I rejected it when I encountered evidence that showed otherwise.  Marriage is still marriage-- but sealing is not marriage.  Prophets are still prophets-- but prophets are not perfect god-like beings.

I also learned this after 20 years of high activity in the Church.  If you were like me, I was also an extremely dedicated missionary, and I have always been very interested in  and dedicated to the gospel.  And that's probably why I didn't discover all this-- history was not my focus, the scriptures and the gospel was my focus.  My focus was in allowing the atonement of Jesus Christ to heal my imperfections, and to follow His example.  I couldn't care less about boring history.

I can't tell you how you are supposed to feel.  But I can share how I felt-- I was embarrassed at first that I made unfounded assumptions.  But then I started learning.  I have always loved learning new things, and now I have come to love learning history, especially the history of the Church.  I didn't have to rebuild my testimony-- it was built on a spiritual witness that Jesus is the Christ, that the Book of Mormon was true, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His restored church.  I didn't have to go back to the drawing board, as none of this new information contradicted these beliefs.  They only contradicted certain assumptions, which I either never held or was able to walk away from.

Joseph's credibility of translating ancient records has not been destroyed.  I believe Joseph still has his character and integrity, however I don't believe anyone should take him at his word, and should instead listen to the Spirit.  Joseph didn't con anyone out of money during his treasure hunting days.  What is so unbelievable about Joseph using his seer stones in a hat that it needs to be brought up so often?  For me, after I learned that it was how it really happened, it explained the questions I had-- how were the seer stones used?  How were the plates hidden from the scribes prior to them being shown by the angel?  How does "not using the plates" ruin the "official story"?  In what official story are the plates used?  Even before learning about the translation method, I never thought that Joseph studied and learned the reformed Egyptian Mormon wrote in and literally read the words off the plates.  The official story is and has always been that he translated it by the gift and power of God, and that story hasn't changed with this new information.

You don't have to sweep anything under the rug.  When you take the First Vision accounts together, they form a coherent story.  I find it much more coherent than the inconsistent and contradictory Book of Mormon plagiarizing theories provided earlier in the letter.

It's okay to believe in the Scriptures figuratively.  Jesus taught using parables, why should I assume that nothing is symbolic?  Why should I assume that "Most Correct" means "fewest errors" and not "Will get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than any other book"?

Perfect translations are impossible, why should I assume it is?  If I am to doubt the Book of Mormon as an ancient record because it contains KJV italics, why should I assume the Bible is an ancient record if it contains KJV italics?  Maybe it would be wiser to instead learn what they are?

Why do you assume that God would do what you would do?  Why do you assume God is polygamous?  Why do you assume Joseph received a Warren Jeffs style revelation on polygamy, when clearly Warren Jeffs received no revelation on polygamy, and just descends from a theology that rejected the prophets and the revelation overriding the one Joseph received?  Somehow I doubt you really didn't know the church once practiced plural marriage until sometime after learning the FLDS practiced it, which is the way it sounds the way it is written here.

No, you don't have to wait until you die to get answers.  While part of faith is that we don't know all the answers, it is true that the glory of God is intelligence.  The entire premise of the church is that God answers prayer.  You can learn answers to your questions through the Spirit.  I have.  That's how this ex-Mormon rejoined the church.

Sure, delusion is ignoring evidence.  I would also say that delusion is thinking that  these weak arguments are evidence against the church.  Joseph translating by the gift and power of God by dictating words he saw revealed to him through stones shining from in the darkness of a hat is not evidence against Joseph Smith.  Slight similarities to largely unrelated books is not evidence against the Book of Mormon.  God not doing what you want is not evidence against God.  People not acting the way you expect people to act is not evidence against prophets.  Learning things that go against your assumptions is evidence against your explanations for the beliefs of the church, not against the beliefs of the church themselves.

And that is my best advice of all-- Let go of your preconceptions and learn what the church actually teaches.  You will find it in the scriptures, recent general conference addresses, and the current church manuals.  Seek after the Spirit, learn to recognize Him.  He will answer your prayers, and He will teach you however you learn best.  Whatever you are struggling with most, turn to God and He will heal you.

We each have different struggles in life.  I don't know who, if anyone, will see this and read this far down.  I'm nobody special-- my goal was just to add another voice for what a regular church-going Latter-day Saint thinks of all these things.

I don't claim to have all the answers.  Compared to God, we're all just a bunch of people that can barely figure out how to dress ourselves.  As we seek God, I hope that we remember that His understanding far exceeds our own.  When I left on my mission, a wise friend encouraged me to remember the hymn, Be Thou Humble.

1. 
   

   Be thou humble in thy weakness, and the Lord thy God shall lead thee,

   Shall lead thee by the hand and give thee answer to thy prayers.

   Be thou humble in thy pleading, and the Lord thy God shall bless thee,

   Shall bless thee with a sweet and calm assurance that he cares.

   
   

   Be thou humble in thy calling, and the Lord thy God shall teach thee

   To serve his children gladly with a pure and gentle love. 

   Be thou humble in thy longing, and the Lord thy God shall take thee,

   Shall take thee home at last to ever dwell with him above.

--Be Thou Humble, by Grietje Terburg Rowley