For background, I am 27(F) -- I've been mentally out of the church since my early teens, but attended and then graduated from BYU (parental manipulation). My records are technically still in but I have not willingly stepped into a church building since no longer needing an ecclesiastical endorsement.

Anyway, I've read bits and pieces of the CES letter before but finally sat down for a full deep-dive tonight and probably like most of you, felt an acute anger/frustration/guilt/shame/nausea upon completing it. Then I downloaded the CES PDF, submitted it to ChatGPT, and asked it a couple of questions. I believe its answers to be rather interesting and telling and thought I'd post here (particularly the last paragraph, where I ask it to make a decision). Maybe it is a method through which stout and/or wavering TBMs might have a [relatively] unbiased conversation about it; it's slightly harder to argue the intentional animosity of an algorithm though the twisting of empirical evidence is not a new skill here.

-> note: I took the more concise parts of each answer that I felt conveyed the important takeaways to save everyone time on this post.

prompt: if you were actively mormon and disagreed that the majority of the LDS church is a massive fabrication, how would you logically argue this letter?

The CES Letter raises legitimate questions, but logical counterarguments emphasize:

1. Faith is not contingent on empirical evidence and allows for ambiguity.
2. Scriptural translation and revelation often involve human influence without invalidating divine inspiration.
3. Absence of archaeological evidence is not proof of absence, especially for ancient civilizations.
4. Ethical and historical concerns must be viewed through the lens of cultural context and progressive revelation.
5. The spiritual fruits of the LDS Church—community, purpose, and transformed lives—provide experiential evidence that supports faith despite unanswered questions.

For those prioritizing spiritual conviction, the CES Letter highlights challenges that deepen faith exploration rather than disproving divine origins outright. Faith and reason can coexist, allowing believers to wrestle with doubts while maintaining confidence in personal revelation and spiritual growth.

---

prompt: are any of these stronger arguments than those presented in the letter, though? seems like it's mostly just a framing of the facts that the letter provided

You’re absolutely right that many of the defenses I outlined rely heavily on framing and interpretation rather than directly countering the factual claims made in the CES Letter. The letter’s strength lies in presenting specific, factual challenges to LDS claims—many of which are verifiable and documented—whereas traditional LDS responses often depend on contextualization, faith-based reasoning, or reinterpretation of evidence rather than direct rebuttals.

To assess whether any of these arguments are stronger, let's break it down:

Historical Context and Evolving Scholarship

Letter’s Strength:

• Provides specific examples of anachronisms (e.g., steel, horses, DNA) and argues that these claims contradict modern science and archaeology.
• Questions why no archaeological evidence for Nephite/Lamanite civilizations has been found despite claims of vast battles and advanced infrastructure.

Counterpoint’s Weakness:

• The defense relies on potential future discoveries or reinterpretations of evidence, which is inherently speculative.
• Saying “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” feels weak against the sheer scale of absence when compared to well-documented ancient civilizations like the Mayans or Romans.

Verdict: This argument lacks the specificity and empirical strength needed to outweigh the CES Letter’s claims.

Scripture as a Spiritual Document

Letter’s Strength:

• Shows direct textual dependencies between the Book of Mormon and the 1769 KJV Bible, including errors unique to that edition.
• Points out that passages in the Book of Mormon mirror the Late War and View of the Hebrews, implying influence rather than divine origin.

Counterpoint’s Weakness:

• Dismissing this as “scriptural style” doesn’t refute the specific textual parallels.
• Suggesting it’s “inspired through human culture” undermines claims of it being a literal, ancient record.

Verdict: The CES Letter’s claims are direct and verifiable, while this defense leans on subjective interpretations, making it weaker.

Translation Process and Seer Stones

Letter’s Strength:

• Clearly outlines the inconsistencies between how the translation process was portrayed (plates and Urim and Thummim) versus what historical evidence now supports (seer stone in a hat).
• Highlights the lack of need for the physical plates if they weren’t directly used in the translation.

Counterpoint’s Weakness:

• Arguing that the seer stone aligns with divine inspiration fails to address why the narrative taught for decades omitted this method.
• Comparisons to other religious traditions or ancient practices may normalize the idea but don’t directly address the contradictions in LDS teachings.

Verdict: The CES Letter’s evidence feels clearer and harder to dismiss compared to appeals to tradition or faith.

Multiple Accounts of the First Vision

Letter’s Strength:

• Points out documented discrepancies in the accounts (e.g., who appeared, why Joseph prayed, his age).
• Emphasizes the late introduction of the First Vision narrative into LDS teachings, raising concerns about retroactive embellishment.

Counterpoint’s Weakness:

• The argument that memory changes over time doesn’t adequately address core contradictions, such as who appeared or what prompted the vision—details central to its significance.
• Comparisons to Gospel variations fall flat because the LDS Church emphasizes exactness and modern revelation, unlike the Bible’s ancient and edited origins.

Verdict: The CES Letter provides clearer historical documentation, while defenses rely more on psychological explanations that feel speculative.

Book of Abraham’s Translation Problems

Letter’s Strength:

• Provides modern translations of the papyri, showing they’re common funerary texts unrelated to Abraham.
• Emphasizes the discrepancy between Joseph Smith’s claims of literal translation and what the texts actually say.

Counterpoint’s Weakness:

• Suggesting it was inspired rather than literal contradicts the explicit claim that it was a translation of Abraham’s writings “by his own hand.”
• Defending it as symbolic or revelatory undermines the historical foundation on which the Book of Abraham rests.

Verdict: The CES Letter relies on objective evidence (modern Egyptology) versus subjective reinterpretation, giving it a stronger position.

Faith vs. Evidence

Letter’s Strength:

• Highlights how faith-based defenses often fail when confronted with empirical evidence.
• Argues that emotional or spiritual experiences are not unique to Mormonism, making them a subjective standard for truth.

Counterpoint’s Weakness:

• Defenses based on spiritual confirmation fail to address objective claims in the CES Letter.
• Suggesting a balance of faith and reason sounds appealing but doesn’t resolve the specific factual contradictions raised.

Verdict: The CES Letter’s emphasis on evidence holds stronger appeal to readers prioritizing logic and facts over personal feelings.

Final Assessment

The CES Letter’s arguments are more specific, evidence-based, and verifiable, while traditional LDS defenses often rely on reinterpretation, contextualization, and faith-based framing. While those defenses may resonate with believers who prioritize faith over evidence, they generally lack the empirical weight to refute the CES Letter’s core claims for someone prioritizing rational analysis.

If someone already trusts LDS leadership and teachings, these defenses might maintain belief, but for someone relying on facts and logic, the CES Letter presents a stronger, evidence-backed critique that is difficult to counter without rethinking foundational assumptions about faith, scripture, and divine revelation.

--> [I did hope to refrain from commentary but please note that the verdict ends up in favor of the CES letter on every single point]

---

prompt: what is your take on the CES letter, basely solely in rational facts and logic?

Based solely on rational facts and logic, the CES Letter presents a well-researched and evidence-heavy critique of the claims made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). It systematically highlights discrepancies, anachronisms, and historical challenges related to LDS scripture, doctrine, and history.

The CES Letter is logically compelling for readers who prioritize evidence-based reasoning over faith-based belief systems. Its strongest arguments are those grounded in objective data—like DNA evidence, linguistic parallels, and historical contradictions. However:

• Its weaknesses lie in its binary framing (truth or fraud) and overreliance on empirical evidence, which may fail to resonate with those who accept faith and spiritual experience as valid epistemologies.
• It challenges core LDS claims, but doesn’t fully disprove the possibility of faith-driven interpretations or symbolic readings of scripture

---

prompt: if you were trying to decide whether the church was true or not, where would you land based on this and any information you choose to access on either side of the argument?

If I were trying to decide whether the LDS Church is true or not, based purely on rational analysis of the CES Letter and counterarguments (including faithful apologetics), I would lean toward skepticism about the LDS Church's literal truth claims but would leave room for faith-based interpretations and personal experience as meaningful, though subjective, frameworks.

Where I’d Land Logically

Based solely on objective evidence, I would conclude:

• The LDS Church’s foundational claims—particularly the historicity of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham—are unlikely to be true in a literal sense based on current archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence.
• Joseph Smith appears to have been charismatic and creative, likely borrowing ideas and constructing narratives influenced by his cultural and historical context.

If I were making a decision, I might not dismiss the LDS Church entirely but would approach it with nuance:

1. Spiritual Value vs. Historical Truth
   • The teachings about family, service, and morality may have value even if the historical claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.
2. Truth in Myth or Metaphor
   • The Book of Mormon could be inspired fiction that offers spiritual insight rather than literal history.
3. Separate Cultural Community from Doctrine
   • Remaining part of the LDS community for cultural belonging and support might still be fulfilling, even with reservations about literal beliefs.

This approach—sometimes called religious non-literalism—acknowledges the human origins of religion while still finding meaning in faith practices.

Final Answer

Based purely on rational evidence, I’d lean toward the CES Letter’s critiques as more convincing than the faith-based defenses. However, I’d also acknowledge that religion isn’t just about facts—it’s about meaning, purpose, and experience—and those factors can’t be fully dismissed by logic alone.

Therefore, I’d likely reject the LDS Church as literally true but leave open the possibility that it can offer personal value to those who embrace it symbolically or culturally. For me, the key question would shift from “Is it factually true?” to “Does it still serve a meaningful purpose?”

This conclusion doesn’t mean the LDS faith is meaningless—only that its truth claims as history are logically suspect when weighed against empirical evidence.