The CES Letter's Rhetorical Tactics: A Closer Look at Argumentation Strategies

“The CES Letter” is an internet document first published in 2012 by author and former-Latter-day Saint, Jeremy Runnells. This document presents an assembly of concerns and criticisms that seek to undermine and discredit the doctrine and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While it has influenced some members to question their faith and also a few investigators to withdraw interest, it employs various rhetorical tactics to manipulate its arguments. Understanding these tactics can help readers discern the methods employed and better evaluate criticisms presented.

Gish Galloping: The Tactic of Overwhelming with Quantity

Gish galloping is a rhetorical tactic where an arguer presents an overwhelming number of arguments in rapid succession, with the basic goal of overwhelming the opponent. This technique makes it impossible for opponents to refute each point, even if the arguments are weak or easily countered. The LDS CES Letter uses this tactic extensively, presenting a barrage of criticisms about Mormon history, doctrine, and practices.

Impact on Readers:

The huge volume of arguments can create a sense of urgency and confusion, making it challenging for readers to evaluate each point in a sensible, critical manner. This tactic can lead readers to believe that the sheer number of criticisms must prove that there is a significant problem, even as individual claims are shown to be flawed or easily rebutted.

Selective Presentation of Evidence

Example: Book of Mormon and Archaeology

The Mormon CES Letter claims there is no archaeological or scientific evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Critics insist that despite extensive efforts by researchers, no artifacts, structures, or other physical evidence have been found that demonstrate the likelihood of the existence of civilizations described in great detail in the Book of Mormon.

Rebuttal:

LDS apologists contend that credible evidence that supports archaeological evidence for  civilizational assertions outlined in the Book of Mormon are purposefully ignored. For example, a popular nonprofit website formed by LDS apologists and scholars, Scripture Central, has produced abundant content that seeks to fairly present archeological evidences and provide a balanced examination according to the standards of the scientific method. In general, the CES Letter dismisses, mocks, or ignores extant and readily available evidence, despite the disciplined approach taken by accredited and faithful experts in various fields of study. 

Framing and Context Omission

Example: First Vision Accounts

A CES Letter summary often emphasizes discrepancies of detail between different accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision in an effort to cast doubt on the event’s authenticity and reliability.

Rebuttal:

LDS apologists note that the core event described in the account is essentially consistent. Variations in some details reflect the circumstances and intent of each account, noting that any witness to a significant event will emphasize or modify certain details to suit the situation and needs of an intended reader. For comparison, they will note that there are also multiple accounts of Paul's vision in the New Testament that emphasize different aspects of the vision according to a document’s intended audience. Apologists assert that the core elements of the vision remain consistent. However, the CES Letter's framing omits this context, highlighting minor differences to cast doubt.

Appeal to Authority and Consensus

Example: Book of Abraham

The CES Letter claims that the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith purportedly translated from Egyptian papyri, has been discredited by modern Egyptology and that surviving fragments do not match Smith's translation, but instead contain common funerary texts.

Rebuttal:

LDS apologists proclaim that the papyri fragments in possession today are not the same ones from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, arguing that the original papyri was likely lost or destroyed, most probably in the great Chicago fire of 1871. Additionally, some apologists propose that Smith didn’t use or need the papyri at all, and that it merely served as a catalyst for revelation. They invite investigators to read the Book of Abraham itself and judge the document on its spiritual merits. The CES Letter limits their analysis of the document simply by pointing to the authority of modern Egyptologists without considering alternative ideas. 

Straw Man Arguments

Example: Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

The CES Letter lists several references in the Book of Mormon that they feel are anachronistic or unsupported by scientific evidence, such as the mention of horses, steel, and other items not believed to exist in the Americas during the time period the Book of Mormon covers.

Rebuttal:

LDS apologists argue that time has vindicated the majority of anachronisms that have been listed over the decades, including new evidence for the existence of “horses” in the New World during the time period of Book of Mormon events. For a more detailed and thorough examination of so-called Book of Mormon anachronisms, see here.  By simply listing outdated studies that insist on the existence of anachronisms, the CES Letter constructs a straw man argument, oversimplifying and misrepresenting the position of LDS apologists.

Emotional Appeals

Example: Changes in Church Doctrine and Practices

Author Jeremy Runnells points out changes in LDS Church doctrine and practices over time, arguing that these changes indicate the LDS Church is not the product of divine revelation.

Rebuttal:

LDS apologists, scholars, and leaders continue to insist that ongoing revelation is a fundamental principle of the LDS faith. They assert that certain changes in doctrine and practices reflect a natural evolution that reflects cultural adjustments and illuminations over time. They emphasize the Church's responsiveness to new circumstances as further light and knowledge is received from God. Historical context often explains why certain practices might have suited the circumstances of the times but could be later modified or discontinued under the direction of modern-day prophets and apostles. The CES Letter's dogged emphasis on various changes appeals to a reader's emotions, imply instability and inconsistency in Church leadership and downplay the principle of continuing revelation.

Conclusion

The CES Letter employs various rhetorical tactics to present its arguments with the relentless objective to discredit the LDS Church. Manipulative techniques like gish galloping, selective presentation of evidence, framing, appeal to authority, straw man arguments, and emotional appeals might create a compelling narrative. However, most of the claims made in the CES Letter can be easily rebutted or explained as an issue is examined a bit more closely. Recognizing how such rhetorical strategies are employed can help readers critically evaluate information and better appreciate the nuances of the various responses offered by LDS apologists and leaders. In recognizing and acknowledging the use of these tactics, readers can more effectively navigate the complex discussions surrounding faith and criticism within the LDS organization.