The Church

Editor’s Note: This may be an article you want to save for its valuable links to a new investigative study by Michael Peterson and Jacob Z. Hess on the intentions of the author of the CES Letter (click the link here to access the full report). This article also includes an important link to Sarah Allen’s answers to the questions the CES letter purports to raise.

I have known the grief of having friends, with whom I have once known the joy of sweet, spiritual communion, come to me with an announcement that hits like a bombshell. They are leaving the Church of Jesus Christ. It often seems sudden, and when I press to know why, I have heard an answer that goes somewhat like this. “I learned something…”. They go on to explain that their eyes have been opened because now they have studied deeply, they have found something shocking on the Internet, or a big secret about the Church has suddenly been revealed to them—something that crushed their faith. 

I know right away what to ask. “Was it the CES letter?” I jump at this first as the possible source of their disillusionment and discontent, because, by now, I’ve seen it so many times. It has become one of the stumbling blocks that trip up and derail the unwary on their spiritual journey. It has been a source of sorrow and separation for too many Latter-day Saints, who thought they were being earnest, when they were only being misled. So, just what is this infamous CES letter, which has hurt so many people’s faith?

At root, it’s an anti-Latter-day-Saint screed, introduced some eleven years ago on the Internet by Jeremy Runnells, whose purposes are to rob vulnerable readers of their testimonies. It relies on most of the same-old anti-Latter-day Saint arguments that have been used for decades, some of them from the beginning of the Restoration. So why, if the ideas are so old, has this CES letter had any fresh pull and appeal? Why did the CES letter go viral?

As Mark Twain said: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” Yet in this case, it was even more than that. 

The reason this CES letter was so dangerously potent, was that Runnells carefully framed it as a tale of a confused young man who was honestly seeking some answers to the faith he once loved. This is how he posed it on his website dedicated to the essay’s dissemination. He claimed the letter is “one Latter-day Saint’s honest quest to get official answers from the LDS Church on its troubling origins, history, and practices.”

It was a premise designed to appeal for sympathy and connection, to play upon our natural need to trust and support each other—and many fell for it, not recognizing a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Instead, members exposed to the essay were left with lingering doubts: What were these questions that were impossible to answer, so impossible, in fact, that it was causing others to step away? Is this something I, too, should examine more myself? Have I been duped? What has the Church been keeping from me?

Since the so-called questions asked in the letter attack the very foundational truth claims of the Church, many scholars and apologists stepped forward to soundly address them.

“This includes, in chronological order: FAIR (2013-2023), Dan Peterson (2014), Michael R. Ash (2015), Brian Hales (2016), Jim Bennett (2018), René Krywult (2019), Scott Gordon (2019), David Snell (2019), Sarah Allen (2021-2022), Gregory L. Smith (2023), and Mormonr (2023). There were also collections of videos addressing specific topics raised in the letter organized by Brian Hales, FAIR, and Saints Unscripted.”

In 2021, Sarah Allen gave a particularly comprehensive analysis and refutation of the CES Letter in 70 Weekly Reddit postings (the equivalent of 800 pages) with exhaustive citations and page links. Yet, it was her first posting “The Dishonest Origins of the CES Letter” that particularly caught the eyes of Michael Peterson and Jacob Hess. 

More than a year ago, they began an investigation into Jeremy Runnells’ story—what they subsequently began calling “the shiny package” that wrapped and sold the CES Letter. And this week, the report from that investigation is being released, called “Were These Ever the Sincere Questions of an Earnest Truth Seeker?” While others had responded to his arguments with rebuttal, Peterson and Hess asked a unique question that no one but Allen had focused deeply on: Who was Jeremy Runnells? What was his history? Was his claim in the CES Letter to be an earnest seeker instead a masquerade hiding his intention of destroying gospel faith and dividing people from their foundation? Was this premise a deliberate lie?

The authors write: “We were motivated to start this inquiry because of the hurt and heartache we have seen among people we love—influenced directly by the contents of this essay. Our goal has been to find out the full truth surrounding its background story and stated purposes, so we can better support the many impacted by its messaging. Because this rhetorical packaging influenced so many precious brothers and sisters of faith to grant the letter unique credibility—trusting it to influence their own views and feelings—we see this investigation as a necessity.”

In the Book of Mormon, Moroni told us he had seen our day and “know your doing.” (Mormon 8:35) His father Mormon included in the record only those events and trends, witnesses and warnings that would be for us. Their writings would be our road map for an increasingly troubled time.

Then, isn’t it compelling that a particular type shows up in the Book of Mormon over and over again as if we are being warned to sit up and pay attention? It is the Nehors, the Sherems, the Korihors who are smooth talking, persuasive, corrosive and insidiously devoted to testimony destruction, all while looking appealing, intellectual and acting in your best behalf. Alma ll describes his sinful, younger years as going about “seeking to destroy the church of God” (Alma 36:6).

We are warned about slick talkers who don’t have our best interests at heart. They are the thieves of joy. They are the thieves of peace. This new investigation was done to help shine light on deception.

Over and over, Peterson and Hess observed in online comments that people were vulnerable to Runnell’s message because they believed his shiny package of being a young seeker who only wanted answers. Yet that shiny package has been mostly ignored, with all the attention going to the package’s corrosive contents. 

“When a veritable mountain of clear, contradictory evidence points beyond the arguments themselves to the larger storyline serving up those arguments to the world, it would seem shortsighted, even unwise, to overlook that evidence. This is especially true in this situation, given the sizable impact of the essay—with some describing it as playing a significant role in their life-altering decision to step away from the Church of Jesus Christ.”

As they dug, the authors learned just how vulnerable people were to the storyline.

“YouTube poster ‘Miss Syrinxie’ is emblematic of so many of the reactions to the essay—with her near-reflexive acceptance of Runnells’ key storylines in 2021:

‘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. Why couldn’t anyone just honestly answer his questions? Obviously, it’s because no one has the answers…’

“Notice how ‘Miss Syrinxie’ focuses on the author’s stated motive for writing his essay,” they relate, “and accepts it without question—which is consistent with so many comments about the CES Letter online. Over and over, we see how readers’ trust in the essay’s contents was directly related to the surrounding storylines and rhetorical packaging they accepted from Runnells as true.” 

“Another anonymous commentator on YouTube in 2015 said about the letter: ‘It came from a place of sincere inquiry.’

“Jordan Schaffer similarly said on Quora in 2019: ‘The man who wrote it designed it as a list of questions that were concerning him while he was still a believing member of the Church, when he was hoping a Church Educational System instructor might be able to provide a scholarly clarification.’”

Peterson and Hess note, “Unmistakably, across thousands of affected readers, it was the shiny wrapper of an ‘earnest questioner’ that gave the letter its broadcastable power, functioning as a compelling online brand.”

Following their lengthy investigation, the authors boiled their results down to ten points about Runnells’ deception. We will touch only lightly on six of them here, but recommend you read the actual 68-page report for a thorough look, where all ten points are covered extensively.  

1. Adversarial Church-bashing long before the letter was written.

Here’s a sample:

“July 2012 (Nine months before writing and publication). Runnells adopts a new, anonymous, church-antagonistic moniker ‘Kolobot’ on ex-mormon Reddit—a site primarily composed of former members of the Church of Jesus Christ hostile to the faith and actively attacking it.

“October 10, 2012. In an ‘Open Letter to Quentin L. Cook,’ of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Runnells (as Kolobot) mocks Elder Cook’s then-recent conference message cautioning about online voices that tear down faith…. ‘I am one of those formerly spiritually lost and ‘apostate’ souls, whose testimony was destroyed by falsehoods I found on the evil internetz,” Kolobot intones. “But on Saturday night, following your advice at General Conference, I repented of my disillusionment, and it totally worked.’ 

“Continuing his pretense, he says: ‘I used to believe a lot of vicious lies, all of which are found in LDS or LDS-friendly sources I read about on the evil internetz…lies about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon and everything else you can think of about the Lord’s Church.’  

On and on the slams are piled, month after month, well before our seeker with a few “honest questions” wrote his letter. He was already practiced at corrosion, a skilled anti-Latter-day Saint dissident.

The authors relate, “After doing her own research, Sarah Allen notes what should be obvious: pre-publication evidence demonstrates that throughout this time, this man was not only far outside of the Church mentally and emotionally but was aggressively attacking it, ‘trying to devise the best way to lead away the rest of his family, and actively helping others push their own family and friends out of the Church as well.’ She frankly adds: ‘Jeremy Runnells has been dishonest about his journey from the beginning.’ The fact that Runnells portrayed an opposite image to the public at the same time he published his essay, in Allen’s words, helps us ‘gauge the truthfulness of the document itself.’”

They add, “All of these attacks were posted before a single word or ‘question’ in the letter was even composed.”

2. Disinterest in Available and Established Channels for Member Questions

“Another key part of Runnells’ story is that ‘no response ever came’ to his request for answers—as he solemnly declares in the upper fold of his website’s opening page. He says this is because the Church ‘has no responses’—not any real ones anyway. They were perfectly willing to ‘indoctrinate’ him throughout his youth and young adult years, he insists, but when this 31-year-old man began to seriously question, they went silent…

“There is no evidence, however, that Runnells sought out church authorities for such answers or resolution—much less the General Authorities of the Church…

“No documentation of such sincere-answer-seeking interactions show up in Runnells’ own carefully kept record, which references only occasional mentions of local leaders in dismissive ways, such as his own bishop about whom he says: ‘I’ve made it clear on my positions…he’s mostly left me alone…[he’s] a Tommy Monson bishop more interested in helping the widows.’

“Indeed, even when later participating in lengthy meetings and interviews with his local Stake President… he would use those opportunities not to seek resolution of heartfelt questions and concerns but instead to further attack the church.

“If largely disinterested in local leadership, someone else caught this man’s eye. Runnells’ concerned grandfather, made aware through the family of his disaffection, tried to connect him up with a personal friend who leads a Latter-day Saint religious education program as a Church Educational System (CES) Director…His grandfather forwarded his contact information to this director-friend, who subsequently emailed him to ask about his religious concerns. This is how the CES Director entered the scene in March of 2013—reaching out to Runnells directly (not the other way around)—with Runnells agreeing to send him an email.

The author of the CES Letter insisted that he wanted “official answers” from “official channels” of the Church yet instead focused on a single CES director. Such directors are not “official” in an authoritative or ecclesiastical sense but are college and high school religion class teachers and coordinators—and there are over 150 of them around the world. They teach and inspire, but they do not speak officially for the Church. 

“This education system director turns out to be more of an incidental actor, a kind of cipher who happened upon the unfolding central act— namely, Runnells’ advancing online crusade against the faith of Jesus Christ.”

3. Textual similarities mirroring other published dissidents

“Were any of us to write a candid letter listing deeply-held concerns and questions we hoped to find some answers to, we’d likely use mostly our own words—referencing quotes only to illustrate our personal wonderings. The content throughout this essay in question, by contrast, includes an overabundance of antagonistic quotes, references and even entire sections of material borrowed, lifted or rephrased from other sources.

“Early on, this wasn’t something Runnells even tried to deny. When asked by John Dehlin about why he decided to put the essay under Creative Commons licensing and attribution, Runnells responded: ‘It’s not my information, and I stand on the shoulders of giants, the Tanners… They’re the real hipsters.’

“’The Tanners?’ Dehlin asked, seemingly for clarification. ‘Yeah,’ Runnells responded, speaking admiringly about these long-time anti-Latter-day Saint antagonists Gerald and Sandra Tanner, whose writings for decades have been dismissed, even by secular observers, for extreme anti-Church bias and outright dishonesty. Yet Runnells went on to insist they were ‘just now being vindicated.’”

4. Taking a hostile, disparaging tone in the original essay 

“Sincere questions typically involve a sincere tone that invites open engagement. Yet the original version of the essay displays remarkable vitriol aimed at both the restored gospel and Jesus Christ himself, including statements like: 

 “’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…’ 

 “‘Christ is the crazy god of the Old Testament….Again, I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well.’”

“The newest version, in Sarah Allen’s words, was ‘softened and recalibrated to appear more sincere and questioning.’ With those fiery lines removed in a previous 2015 update, he now continues finessing the language, further camouflaging the essay’s intention. Yet the plain aggression of both the original and updated text manifests in more ways than one.”

“The substructure of the letter itself, for instance, reflects what Runnells himself calls ‘machine-gunning’: a tactic of piling many ‘questions’ or ‘concerns’ into one place. This has also been called a ‘Gish gallop,’ which is defined as ‘a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time,’ which makes the totality seem impossible to refute. 

“Widely recognized as an abusive form of rhetorical bullying, this technique has been used frequently in anti-Latter-day Saint campaigns to emotionally overwhelm and provoke spiritual meltdown in people by pummeling them with multiple attacks upon their faith. While potentially harmful to anyone, this is especially so for sensitive teenagers and young adults, whom Runnells has demonstrated are one of his major targets.”

“Compared to a genuine question, which openly anticipates various potential answers and different possible perspectives—Runnells’ questions offer no such context. As such, the format of the rapid-fire letter leaves the impression that there are no answers—one of the implicit messages of the entire essay. “ 

“Questions become merely strategic tools in a predesigned attempt to stir up doubt—in this case about the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“Even while acknowledging his older age on occasion, it’s apparent that within his CES letter brand, Runnells wanted readers to regard him as if he were someone younger and inexperienced who had stumbled on unsettling questions (rather than a mature, 31-something adult with long experience in the Church and an immersion in anti-Latter-day Saint material). Upon discovering he had been “lied to,” this sympathetic character is then ushered into a kind of gripping coming of age saga.” 

5. Immediately promoting and personally disseminating the letter online.

“Had any of us placed the sincere questions of our heart into a private letter, there would likely be a period of weeks that we would await a response. That’s what happens with a genuine question—you anticipate an answer. 

“Yet almost simultaneous with the release of his letter, Runnells makes immediate and prodigious efforts to openly promote and disseminate the text on the web. In the April 2014 interview with John Dehlin, he acknowledged posting the letter on another widely read anti-Church website “around that time in late April” when he first emailed it to the CES Director. 

“The transformation from private to public letter is lightning quick. 

“Sarah Allen summarized Runnells’ personal role in the extensive online distribution of his essay, including advance efforts before its wider public release. For instance, back on March 26th, he told participants on the antagonistic Reddit forum, ‘I will also be including a Word copy so that you and anyone can make the document your own.’ And he did so a few weeks later, on April 12th, encouraging this same large online population to share the letter with others and, again, to make it their own: ‘Personalize it for yourselves to give to your TBM [True Believing Mormons] loved ones. It’s yours.’ 

“Clearly, several of that disaffected audience did just that. Their responses display a kind of gleeful excitement to send his manufactured story and essay to active members of the Church in their lives: spouses, siblings, extended family, and friends—in the hope of persuading them to join their disbelief. Here was a compact, 77-page PDF doubt bomb wrapped in an interesting personal story that could easily be distributed through email and social media, attacking all the core foundational truths of the restoration of the gospel of Christ. How better could you attempt to decimate the faith of the faithful?”

Runnells lied, “I never promoted it. It just happened.” 

6. Employing malicious personal attacks upon anyone who dared to disagree

“If you and I were raising honest questions to the world, there would naturally be space to explore different perspectives. As [another] point of evidence, Jeremy Runnells’ behavior over the years demonstrates something far different: an aggressive response to anyone who didn’t agree with the arguments he was making or the flimsy evidence upon which they were based. 

“This began soon after the letter’s initial 2013 release as he issued hostile rebuttals to any person or group attempting to respond in depth to his essay’s “questions.” If the author claimed he was just sincerely seeking answers and dialogue to arrive at resolution, why such immediate zeal to attack those offering responses?”

It started with name calling, and then moved on to aggressive attacks upon anyone who dared criticize him. “Yet Runnells reserves his ugliest vitriol for arguably his most compelling critic, a remarkable woman: Sarah Allen. Because she had the courage to boldly and publicly unfold the false origin story of his essay—the foundational deception upon which his entire influence was based—he blasts her on his website, alongside her picture, with name-calling, denigrations, and other personal attacks. Then, after long-time insistence that no one was willing to answer his questions (despite the many who have publicly done so), he tells his audience to ignore Allen’s extensive responses to his essay. Instead, he goes straight for her character. 

“Runnells labels her ‘an amateur apologist trying to make a name for herself.’ He repeatedly refers to her as ‘Deceptive Sarah’: ‘I just can’t stand seeing Deceptive Sarah’s face. I’m so repulsed by her.’ In an indirect reference to her gender, he mocks her, addressing her as ‘sweetheart’—talking down to her, decrying what he claims is her ‘fundamental ignorance.’ Then— ironically—he charges her with a ‘Scientology-style cult move here and focusing instead on attacking the person instead of the issues.’

“In this way, Allen’s effective checking of Runnells’ grand deception leads him to accuse her of the very thing that he himself is doing—instead of focusing on the substance of what they are saying, he attacks in insulting language the character and personality of the person best challenging his falsehoods.”

In summary, ten areas of evidence: 

Here, now, in order, are the ten findings of the investigation, and in the report, each is thoroughly discussed.

1. Adversarial Church-bashing long before the letter was written 
2. Disinterest in available and established channels for member questions 
3. Seeking feedback from church antagonists prior to publication 
4. Public statements revealing a much broader intended audience 
5. Textual similarities mirroring other published dissidents 
6. Taking a hostile, disparaging tone in the original essay 
7. Immediately promoting and personally disseminating the letter online 
8. Disparaging attitudes and manipulative actions toward local Church leaders 
9. Extensive and ongoing branding expansion efforts over subsequent years 
10. Employing malicious personal attacks upon anyone who dared to disagree

Michael Peterson and Jacob V. Hess have done yeomans’ work on their investigative report, which only solidifies what should have been clearer for those who read the infamous CES Letter, with its stack of fabrications, from the beginning. You don’t seek answers to your own personal questions, nor try to extend your knowledge, by reading the work of someone who hates your faith and wants to demoralize your children. You shouldn’t take a testimony and dump it in boiling oil and expect it to remain intact, especially if the one who started the fire did it with the intention of preying upon something that is precious to you—your sense of self and of God.

When someone says, “I am only being honest with you,” maybe we should ask some questions of our own… The “honest” questions of Jeremy Runnells were a deceit from the beginning. He was never being honest with us.