Introduction
This website responds to criticisms and allegations raised by the CES Letter.
What is the CES Letter?
The CES Letter is a collection of criticisms aimed at weakening faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). It presents selective information, uses partial truths, and leaves out important context to misrepresent historical events and doctrine, creating an impression of the church as misleading or untrustworthy.
The document is essentially a catalog of claims challenging the Church’s truthfulness, with many arguments dating back decades.
Example criticism #1
In its first section, the CES Letter mentions that "" have been made to the Book of Mormon, with no further explanation. On its face, this claim is alarming given that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS religion. How could a divinely inspired text undergo so many alterations and still be considered reliable scripture?
Let's explore what the CES Letter fails to mention:
The vast majority of Book of Mormon changes relate to punctuation, spelling, and grammar
The Original Manuscript had almost no punctuation and a myriad of spelling errors, typical of oral dictation. See it for yourself.
For example, 17 "changes" are found when comparing 1 Nephi 1:1 in the Printer's Manuscript to the corresponding verse in the modern edition:
"I Nephi haveing been born of goodly parents therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father & haveing seen many afflictions in the cours of my days nevertheless haveing been highly favored of the Lord in all my days yea haveing had a great knowledg of the goodness & the mysteries of God therefore I make a record of my procedings in my days"
I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
The LDS Church has made available to the public, in their surviving entirety, photographs and transcripts of the Original Manuscript and Printer's Manuscript. Readers are encouraged to see and compare for themselves.
Phrase and wording changes include:
"in a valley beside a river of water"
"in a valley by the side of a river of water"
"a strong and a mighty man"
"a strong and mighty man"
"our Father which art in heaven"
"our Father who art in heaven"
The most significant changes include:
"the mother of God"
"the mother of the Son of God"
"a white and a delightsome people"
"a pure and a delightsome people"
"the Son of the Only Begotten of the Father"
"the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father"
That's it, folks. No doctrinal changes, no storyline shifts, no coverups. See a detailed analysis of changes here.
Ironically, the CES Letter has this criticism completely backwards. What's actually impressive is how few changes were made. The original manuscript of 270,000 words was written over the course of 60 days. Aside from punctuation/spelling/grammar, it was nearly a perfect first draft with no revisions common to works of similar length or complexity.
This kind of "100,000 changes" shock claim is intended to catch the reader off guard, to chink at their faith. They are left to assume the worst, when in reality, the Book of Mormon we have today is nearly identical to the first and final draft of the original translated text. That, in itself, should cause one to pause and wonder.
Example criticism #2
Spoiler: this next claim is so absurd, the CES Letter author considered removing it entirely as it weakens his Church-is-false narrative. One must wonder: how sincere was he in finding answers to his questions?
The CES Letter claims that Joseph Smith borrowed geographical names and features from his surroundings for the Book of Mormon, suggesting that he authored the book himself. At first glance, this allegation might seem troubling. If the Book of Mormon contains names similar to places near Joseph Smith’s home, does that imply he fabricated the text using familiar landmarks?
Examining the Evidence
The primary evidence presented is a map created by Vernal Holley, which overlays Book of Mormon place names onto a map of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada.
However, this approach has significant flaws:
Selective Sampling: The CES Letter cherry-picks 20 names that sound similar while ignoring the majority of Book of Mormon names that have no correlation to local geography. Of of 86 place names in the Book of Mormon,
Geographical Inconsistencies: The locations of these names on Holley’s map don’t align with the internal geography described in the Book of Mormon. For instance, the city of Morianton should be near the eastern seashore according to the text (Alma 50:25), but Holley’s map places it near the western sea.
Temporal Anachronisms: Many of the towns cited either didn’t exist during Joseph Smith’s time or were known by different names. For example:
Alma, New York: Established after the Book of Mormon was published.
Antioch, Ohio: Founded in 1833, three years after the Book of Mormon’s publication.
Boaz, West Virginia: Named in 1878.
4. Common Biblical Names: Names like Jerusalem, Jordan, and Shiloh are biblical and widely used in many places. It’s more plausible that these names were derived from the Bible rather than local geography.
Statistical Probability
When you consider the vast number of place names across a large geographic area, it’s statistically inevitable that some names will resemble each other. This is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy—drawing a target around random data points after the fact to create the illusion of a pattern.
For instance, there are over 20 towns named Springfield in the United States. Claiming that a fictional story set in Springfield is based on any one of them simply because of the shared name ignores the commonality of such names.
Linguistic Analysis
Moreover, many Book of Mormon names have Semitic or Egyptian linguistic roots consistent with its claimed ancient origins:
• Alma: Once thought to be a feminine Latin name, it’s now known from the Bar Kokhba documents (c. AD 130) to be a male Hebrew name, something Joseph Smith couldn’t have known.
• Mulek: Resembles the Hebrew word melek, meaning “king.”
• Sariah: A female Hebrew name found in ancient Jewish texts.
It’s highly improbable that Joseph Smith, with his limited education and resources, could have fabricated these names with authentic ancient Near Eastern etymologies.
Logical Considerations
Let’s apply some logical reasoning:
• No Evidence of Map Use: There’s no historical evidence that Joseph Smith consulted maps extensively. In fact, given his family’s financial situation, it’s unlikely he had access to detailed regional maps.
• Consistency and Complexity: The Book of Mormon contains intricate narratives, consistent geography, and complex doctrines. Creating such a work by randomly pulling names from local maps would be an extraordinary feat for someone of Joseph’s background.
Conclusion
The claim that Joseph Smith borrowed local geographical names to create the Book of Mormon doesn’t withstand critical scrutiny. The supposed similarities are superficial and, in many cases, historically and geographically inaccurate.
When we look at the evidence objectively, we find that:
• The parallels are coincidental and statistically insignificant.
• Many of the cited place names didn’t exist during Joseph Smith’s time.
• The linguistic authenticity of Book of Mormon names points to ancient origins rather than 19th-century fabrication.
In essence, the argument relies on selective evidence and ignores the broader context. As with any serious inquiry, it’s crucial to examine all the facts before drawing conclusions. The Book of Mormon’s depth, consistency, and complexity suggest origins far beyond the capabilities of a young man in rural 19th-century America.
Why is it called "CES Letter"?
Who wrote the CES Letter?
BoM complex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-XC05DHH2w&t=5s
Last updated
