[Introduction] Detailed Response to the "CES Letter" from a believing Latter-day Saint

Sometime after I had published my Overview of the "Letter to a CES Director" it came to my attention that Jeremy Runnells had updated it, and so some of my responses were out of date for the current document.  But I decided to leave it alone, since there wasn't a ton of changes, and it was only intended to be a surface-level response, and if that is what you are looking for, then go back and read that one.

This one, I decided to flesh out my thoughts more with an in-depth response.  Many others have written their own responses, and I still recommend reading them.  For some of their answers, I felt like I would answer differently than they did, but even where it is the same, I wanted to add my voice.  Here are links to other responses:

• In-depth replies from:
• Jim Bennett
• Brian Hales
• Sarah Allen
• Michael Ash
• FAIR
• Conflict of Justice.
• In-depth positive evidence using a similar style that also addresses many criticisms
• Austin Fife
  
• Shorter analyses from:
• churchistrue
• Neal Rappleye (and part 2)
• Kevin Christensen (plus follow-up)
• Good observations on its approach rather than its content
• Daniel Petersen
• Jeff Lindsay

The purpose of this post is for those who have read the CES Letter and wonder how a faithful Latter-day Saint responds to the concerns Jeremy brings up.  I can't speak for everyone, but these are my own thoughts.

The CES Letter is probably best described as a Gish gallop meaning that it is easier to bring up criticisms than to actually answer them.  Jeremy thinks that is an unfair attack given that there's no time limit.  However, the term also applies to written debates too, since most people aren't going to dedicate the amount of time required and will get overwhelmed—and that's what makes it is a Gish gallop.  But I am not being dismissive, I decided to take the time to go in and respond to everything.  And I recommend that if there's anything you question, you don't have to take my word or Jeremy's word for it—you can research it for yourself.

And that's one thing I love about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  No one forces you to believe anything you don't want to, and we all have access to revelation from Heavenly Father. With that in mind, let's jump in.

Prophecies from October 2019 General Conference

Every now and again, I'll see a post asking something like, "If we believe in prophets, where are the prophecies?" My answer is always the same-- take a look at the most recent conference, and you will find them there. This answer is usually appreciated by believing Latter-day Saints, but dismissed by those antagonistic to the church.

The primary role of a prophet is to act as God's messenger and make known God's will. He will teach faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. I think lots of times those looking for prophecies are looking for things similar to biblical accounts of prophets warning cities of their impending destruction if they do not repent. These are very dramatic, but only really happen a few times in the Bible and Book of Mormon. However, on a less grandiose scale, these things happen all the time. The day of miracles has not ceased.

Is the King Follett Sermon Doctrinal?

I've seen a lot of posts asking "why does the church not teach the King Follett sermon?" or "why hasn't the church implemented the King Follett sermon into church doctrine?"  While the King Follett sermon isn't without controversy, I'd say that the bulk of it is taught in the church today, in some form or another.

Of course, maybe the question is really why it hasn't been made part of our canon.  I think a big part of that is that we do not have a transcript of the sermon itself.  The version most of us are familiar with (part 1, part 2) is an amalgamation from notes taken by four men who were present.

So in this post, I'm just speaking of doctrine-- and by that I mean "what does the church currently teach?"  To do so, I will outline sections of the King Follett sermon, see how Joseph Smith taught it, and then compare with recent general conference quotes.

For simplicity, in general I will use the quotes and section breaks from the amalgamation to highlight the different topics Joseph Smith covers.

Do Churches Create a Taxpayer Burden?

I saw a claim the other day that churches cost the government $83.5 billion in lost taxpayer revenue.  A related claim I saw was that if churches paid taxes, then we would only have to pay 3% in taxes.  But is that true?  Let's take a closer look.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson found nearly every Book of Mormon claim wrong?

On Saturday, a post on reddit made the top page that challenged the Latter-day Saint narrative.  This isn't unexpected, it happens from time to time.  The unusual part was how popular it got.  The article from an evangelical counter-cult site was posted to todayilearned and received 83k upvotes, 3 platinum, 10 gold, and 14 silver before being removed by the moderators.  (They didn't say why, probably either for 1. unreliable source, or more likely, 4. No politics/agenda pushing which is usually what is cited when they remove a religious post.)

The title of the post was "TIL A devout Mormon set out in 1955 on an archaeological expedition to prove the Book of Mormon's claims. After 15 years instead he found nearly every claim in the BOM was wrong and the papyrus J. Smith claimed written by Abraham was actually just a page ripped out of the Egyptian Book of the Dead"

A few of the comments wondered how we react to this sort of stuff.  The post was cross-posted to the latterdaysaint subreddit with the same question for us, and it received many positive responses before it was taken down. (I presume because the post it was pointing at was taken down.)

Here is my response to the claims made in the title and the article.

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.

Defining Mormon Doctrine

Occasionally, the question is asked, "How do I know if something is doctrine or not?"

Several years ago, the Mormon Newsroom put out a guide on approaching Mormon doctrine which clarifies some of the misunderstandings that some people have when it comes to defining doctrine, namely that isolated statements aren't necessarily doctrine, and that not all doctrine is core doctrine.

I think it is fair to define our doctrine as being able to answer in the affirmative to the following questions:

1. Is it scriptural?
2. Is it coming from the unified voice of the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve?

Is that definition of doctrine doctrinal?  As in, can I use this definition to discover if it applies to itself?  I say yes.  After the jump-break are a list of quotes from the standard works and general conference that would support such a definition: