Were the CES Letter’s Questions Ever Sincere?
In Were These Ever the Sincere Questions of an Earnest Truth Seeker?, writers Michael Peterson and Jacob Z. Hess step away from line-by-line rebuttals of the CES Letter’s claims and examine something most discussions overlook: the story surrounding the letter itself. Read their full publication here.
Rather than asking whether individual arguments can be answered, Peterson and Hess ask a prior question. Was the CES Letter ever what it claimed to be? Was it genuinely written as a private list of unresolved questions sent to a Church Education System director in hopes of restoring faith?
Their conclusion, based on extensive documentation, is that the commonly accepted origin story does not hold up under scrutiny.
A Different Kind of Investigation
Peterson and Hess do not attempt to refute every historical or doctrinal claim raised in the CES Letter. Others have already done that work. Instead, their study focuses on methodology, framing, intent, and dissemination.
Across seventy pages, they trace the CES Letter’s development before, during, and after its release. They analyze public statements, online posts, revisions, and promotional efforts to determine whether the letter’s framing as “just sincere questions” matches the evidence.
Public Hostility Before the Letter Was Sent
One of the authors’ first findings is that Jeremy Runnells expressed strong hostility toward the Church well before sending the letter. His public comments in online forums reflect settled conclusions, not uncertainty. The tone was adversarial and dismissive, which conflicts with the image of someone actively seeking resolution or open to persuasion.
This context matters because it helps establish the mindset behind the document at the time it was written.
Drafting, Testing, and Crowdsourcing
The study documents how drafts of the CES Letter were shared in antagonistic online communities prior to being sent to any CES director. Feedback was solicited, criticisms were refined, and additional material was suggested.
Peterson and Hess argue that this behavior aligns with message optimization, not private inquiry. The letter was being shaped for impact, not clarity or dialogue.
Strategic Organization and Reader Engagement
The authors also highlight statements from Runnells explaining why the letter was structured the way it was. He acknowledged the need to “hook” readers quickly and chose to lead with Book of Mormon critiques rather than Joseph Smith to avoid immediate dismissal.
This reveals a deliberate effort to guide reader reactions, particularly among believing but vulnerable members.
Marketing, Branding, and Distribution
One of the most detailed sections of the paper documents the rapid transition from private letter to public campaign. Within a short time, the CES Letter was:
- Hosted on a dedicated website
- Search-engine optimized
- Professionally designed
- Translated into multiple languages
- Released in audio and print formats
- Actively promoted through interviews and online coordination
Peterson and Hess note that these actions are inconsistent with later claims that the letter spread on its own without the author’s involvement.
Expansion and Revision Over Time
The CES Letter did not remain static. It expanded from roughly 75 pages to 137 pages, with nearly half of the current content added years after the original version.
The authors also document how the tone was softened over time, with some of the most aggressive language removed. They argue that this evolution reflects a shift in presentation rather than a change in underlying purpose.
Tone of the Original Letter
Early versions of the CES Letter contained language expressing moral contempt for belief and certainty about conclusions. Peterson and Hess contrast this with the later portrayal of the letter as a neutral set of unanswered questions.
The discrepancy raises questions about how sincerity is being defined.
Reliance on Hostile Sources
The study also examines the CES Letter’s sources, noting extensive dependence on Church-hostile materials, including Grant Palmer and MormonThink. In several cases, content appears closely mirrored, sometimes without clear attribution.
This challenges the perception of the CES Letter as an independent investigation.
Conflicting Statements About Audience
Peterson and Hess document multiple, conflicting explanations from Runnells about who the letter was written for. At various times, it was described as:
- A private letter to one CES director
- A document written for his children
- A resource aimed at “fence sitters”
These shifting explanations further undermine the consistency of the origin story.
Why the Origin Story Matters
The authors argue that the CES Letter’s influence rests heavily on trust in its framing. Many readers accepted the letter because they believed it came from a sincere, faithful member who simply wanted answers.
Peterson and Hess conclude that when the surrounding narrative is examined alongside the evidence, that trust deserves reconsideration.
A Call for Context, Not Censorship
The paper does not argue that questions should be silenced or that criticism should be ignored. Instead, it makes a narrower claim: context matters. Understanding how a document was constructed, marketed, and presented affects how it should be weighed.
By shifting the focus from individual claims to the methods used to persuade, Peterson and Hess provide readers with tools to evaluate the CES Letter more carefully and more honestly.