Changes to the CES Letter

If the CES Letter were really just a letter, it would have served its stated purpose: to ask questions and receive answers. Once those answers were provided, that would have been the end of it.

But if that ever was the purpose, it certainly changed quickly. The “Letter” itself—meaning the website and document created by Jeremy Runnells—has undergone thousands of changes over time. As rebuttals appeared and knowledgeable people provided context, documentation, and answers, the CES Letter did not conclude. Instead, it changed and doubled down. Claims were rewritten, sections were adjusted, and arguments were reframed. If Jeremy Runnells had simply been looking for answers, the response would have been straightforward: thank you, that clarifies things. That was never an option. For Runnells, the Church had to be false, and no alternative explanation was acceptable. He would do whatever he could to provide new evidence or arguments. When arguments failed, the response was not correction but revision.

These changes were deliberately designed to ensure the CES Letter continued to fulfill its real purpose: persuading “fence sitters” to read it, accept its framing, and ultimately lose their faith. And of course, make sure that it stayed relevant so that Jeremy could continue making his living off “donations”.

Runnells did not make these changes in isolation. He openly solicited feedback from ex-Mormon Reddit groups, asking for help responding to rebuttals and refining arguments. He also publicly explained his strategy on his own website, stating that the tone needed to be softened to avoid turning people off. This is why sections like “Why I Lost My Testimony” were removed and replaced with the much softer framing, “My Search for Answers.”

Changes to the CES Letter

Here are a few of the major changes to the CES Letter.

Quiet Redactions in the CES Letter

One of the most overlooked problems with the CES Letter is not just what it claims, but how those claims have changed over time. Early versions of the CES Letter contained stronger, more absolute assertions that could not withstand scrutiny. Rather than issuing public corrections or acknowledging errors, later versions quietly removed, rewrote, or softened these claims without explanation.

This is dishonest because the CES Letter is still presented as if this was the letter he sent to the CES Director. Readers are not told that earlier versions made claims that were later abandoned, nor are they informed why those changes occurred. As a result, critics can dismiss rebuttals by saying, “That’s not what it says anymore,” while never acknowledging that it did say those things.

This pattern is best described as quiet redaction. Claims were not retracted. Errors were not admitted. Content was simply altered or removed, leaving no trail for readers to follow. That lack of transparency undermines the claim that the CES Letter represents honest inquiry or careful scholarship.

Claims Quietly Removed from the CES Letter

Here are some of the clearest claims from the original CES Letter that were later modified after evidence demonstrated they were unsupportable. Some were removed altogether, while others were softened by significantly reducing their emphasis.

CES Letter Claims that Were Softened

These claims were softened so the CES Letter would be more palatable to believing members, who would likely be alienated by earlier statements that were too directly at odds with what they believed.