



Who is Jeremy Runnells and what is The CES Letter (CESL)?

The Standard Narrative

Deceit

Do church leaders know there’s a problem?

Local Leadership

Why doesn’t the church just correct the standard narrative?

‘Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue.’

M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, 16/12

Summary

1) The truthfulness of the gospel can't be proved academically

2) The role of faith.

3) The CES Letter

4) Don’t blame church leaders

Disclaimer: I am an active, believing Mormon and the views shared below are entirely my own.* * *For the past couple of years or so now, many within the orbit of Mormonism will have heard of what’s known as The CES Letter. Just recently, an amateur LDS blogger submitted his own critique of this seemingly infamous document; attempting in the process to debunk and refute many of its assertions, and then just for good measure brand the author a liar.Perhaps not surprisingly, the author of said letter was quick to respond with a lengthy comeback of his own; highlighting some very prickly points of commission and omission on the part of our blogger friend.My purpose in writing this isn’t to jump on any kind of bandwagon or rehash the same old, same old. No, instead I merely wish to add my own take on why the CES Letter has become a hiss and a byword among believing Mormons and then try and offer up my own explanation as to why we have a faith crisis among many of todays membership; a crisis which many would happily attribute to the letter and other such material like it.Part of that explanation though requires that we first humanise the story behind the CES Letter and its author, Jeremy Runnells.The average chapel Mormon who may have either read snippets of the CESL or heard tales of its existence as an ‘anti-Mormon’ document, can to some extent be forgiven for acting on years of conditioning, from the which we’re taught to shun or discredit anything that casts doubt on our own faith or portrays the church in a negative light.Once upon a time I may have allowed my own pre-programming to steer me toward giving the CESL a wide berth, but times and seasons in the church have changed and whether we like it or not, the CESL is in part a by-product of the new age of information which amongst other things, places our LDS history under a sometimes uncomfortable lense of scrutiny..As for the CESL itself – well that deserves an explanation as opposed to being scorned and dismissed as a mere anti-Mormon tract.First though let’s introduce the author – Jeremy Runnells (JR for the purpose of this paper).JR may well be something akin to the devil himself depending on who you talk to, but failure to understand his backstory only serves to fuel the idea that the CESL is something we as believing Mormons should all fear and loathe.Jeremy Runnells was an active, believing member. He served a mission and led the kind of ‘normal’ LDS life that probably wouldn’t have singled him out from any average Joe of his day.His own narrative informs us that while doing some research, he stumbled across a few troubling things pertaining to the church’s history and as such, embarked on his own investigations which in turn led to further questions.At this point I should add that he didn’t suddenly morph into an evil anti-Mormon agitator as some might prefer to believe.In fact, he did exactly what we’re taught by our leaders to do – he sought answers from the right sources.Initially he spoke to his Dad, following which it seems, his Grandfather got wind of some of what was going on and pointed Jeremy in the direction of a friend of his who was a director at the Church Education System (CES).The director was more than happy to take (and presumably answer) any questions or concerns that JR had. Acting on this invitation, a letter was composed which brilliantly and methodically set out a whole array of questions and problems relating to different topics regarding church history and doctrine.Thus ‘Letter to a CES Director’ as it was originally titled, was born.Now I’m not going to touch on the letters contents here as that’s been done to death. What I will say though is that it’s a thoroughly well written document and I personally don’t doubt that JR sincerely wanted those many, many questions answered.Unfortunately they weren’t. Our friend the CES director, despite initially appearing eager to help, wasn’t forthcoming in offering up a response to the body of the letter.The reason? Unknown. If I were to guess I’d say he was probably anticipating a few run of the mill queries where the traditional answers are ready made as standard, thus he could simply dispatch these to the young Runnells and phew; it’s problem solved.In reality however, what he received by way of the letter was a massive catalogue of problems covering a multitude of topics which more than likely gave him a migraine after the first two pages.So, with no comeback from the CES, JR has little choice but to harbour his doubts quietly to himself.By this point the CESL starts to make headway on its own; popping up on certain discussion forums ; being forwarded and posted on social media until eventually it finds its way to some church apologists where it’s then privately and publicly ‘debunked’.It needs to be remembered that JR hasn’t gone out of his way to make waves or be a nuisance to the church. He’s simply asked the questions and then more or less been publicly denounced for having the gall to ask them in the first place.The growing popularity of the CESL eventually grabs the attention of his local leaders, and it isn’t long before JR finds himself sitting before his Stake President.This is a part of the story that we really need to pay heed to, because one thing that JR can never be accused of lacking is transparency.Rightly or wrongly, all of the discussions between JR and the Stake President are in written transcript and audio form which gives us a clear insight into the dynamics of the story.I’m not going to get into the ins and outs of their discussion – I’ll provide a link to the transcript in the appendix. Let me instead just summarise what happens as part of these meetings.The Stake President initially seems willing to listen and help, but doesn’t show much inclination to read the letter. JR sounds him out with a few concerns such as the Book of Mormon translation methods (presumably to test the water), and it becomes clear that the President is hopelessly out of his depth. Not his fault. He just clearly hasn’t encountered anything historical other than what is taught in the standard church curriculum.Now here’s where we get to the heart of it. JR explains in no uncertain terms that all he wants is answers to his questions. Not answers from unofficial apologists, but from authorised church leaders. Not that unreasonable. Furthermore, he goes on to say that he will willingly and publicly correct anything in the CESL that church leaders tell him is wrong – (the document at this point was publicly viewable).Initially the Stake President seemed happy to mull it over and take it forward from there.What happened though – and I give a cut down version, is that those much sought after answers were not forthcoming; JR was reprimanded for sharing the contents of the CESL publicly and a disciplinary hearing was convened.Now interesting to note that as JR pointed out; much of what he wrote in his letter is already acknowledged by the church as part of its Gospel Essays which today are available on LDS.org although still not loudly spoken off.The disciplinary council came and went which resulted in JR actually resigning his membership before a decision was made as to his fate.Maybe I’ve laboured over the back story too much but actually this is really necessary; not because I’m making it a mission to speak up for JR, but because it’s become clear to me at least, that we have a serious problem in the church which isn’t down to the CESL or JR. It is in fact an internal problem which we need to fix if we’re going to prevent future generations from drifting away from our church pews.Of course it’s easy to write of JR as just another anti-Mormon troublemaker but amid this whole story, the church hasn’t come out smelling of roses and some serious gaps in the way we handle questions about our history still remain wide open.Let’s look then at what I believe to be the root cause of the church’s problems when it comes to questions about our history and doctrine.The history of the restoration, together with the early history of the church has typically been taught and depicted in a very linear, clear cut way. I remember as a young missionary teaching people about the first vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the persecution of the saints etc, etc.For the most part, the story of those earlier formative years barely varies from what’s taught in Primary class rooms to what we teach in the mission field.Basically, everything that recent generations of LDS have been taught about our history and doctrine, together with the myriad of so called ‘Mormon Myths’, constitute The Standard Narrative.Within this simplistic teaching catchment, everything relating to Mormon history and origins has what can only be described as a very clean and polished finish. There’s a nice answer for everything. Controversial or difficult issues rarely have a place and a great many liberties are taken and yes; it’s fair to say, some truths are severely stretched.Some believing Mormons reading this might be tempted to switch off at this point but I’d ask you to bear with me.The Standard Narrative does actually have a place in the church. Going back to my mission days again, it made sense when teaching people about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon to keep it simple and stick to the ‘safe’ facts.One obvious example of this would be that we’d explain to people that the Book of Mormon was an ancient record of the inhabitants of the American continent and was translated by the power of God. If people were more inquisitive, we may have even mentioned the Urim and Thummim.What we certainly wouldn’t have done is delved into the plethora of unknowns or anomalies around the method of translation. For starters we didn’t even know there were variations in the methodology and secondly even if we did; it’s outside of the Standard Narrative and therefore off-limits!Having a simple, linear, faith building account of the restoration keeps people focused on the simple, uplifting facets of the gospel.Back in the day, the Standard Narrative even had answers to the awkward questions we as missionaries used to get asked. If someone wanted to know why the Mormons used to have so many wives…easy…it was because of all the men who got killed during the civil war and the women needing to be looked after. (Fortunately nobody had ever heard of polyandry back then).And we could go on and on. I don’t think anyone could disagree that the Standard Narrative unchallenged, creates an inspirational and uplifting account of our church and its leaders.But there’s a problem. Information and enlightenment are rapidly catching up and steadily deprecating the Standard Narrative to a point where eventually it will be defunct to all but the most determined hangers on.About seven years ago and long before the existence of the CESL, I as an amateur history buff; read the Comprehensive History of the Church. Now, notwithstanding the author BH Roberts being perhaps one of the earliest, prominent apologists, the lid was still nonetheless lifted (partially at least) on the clear cut teachings of LDS history.Here within our own material were accounts of the usage of seer stones and hats as part of the Book of Mormon translation. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were given personalities that didn’t portray them as figures akin to deity.In short, the Standard Narrative already had an early divergence which overtime saw some of its rough edges smoothed off and given a new coat of paint.Let’s be clear though; I’m not attacking the way the church has chosen to tell its story. Certainly there was a time when sticking to a narrow line would have been appropriate. But sadly we’re at a point now where we’re reaping the effects of the over usage of the Standard Narrative and the unwillingness to embrace openness.What I’m about to say now might cut deep with some members, but it needs to be said. The Standard Narrative has in recent years been so aggressively pushed on the members, that in some cases it could conceivably pass as borderline deception.One of the offending areas is LDS media. Although it’s clear that church artwork and movies are made to tell a good story and build faith, many depictions of our history are in my opinion knowingly clipped and distorted.An example: I love the church approved movie – Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration.It is (in my opinion), well made, fairly acted and depending on your pulse within Mormonism, uplifting and moving.The problem however is that it’s clearly a deliberate attempt to conceal every negative aspect of our history as well as the human imperfections of the Prophet Joseph.Take the portrayal of Joseph himself by the ever affable Nathan Mitchell. Here we see a man who is a constant epitome of gentleness, soft spoken words, temperance and all those other godlike qualities that endeared the prophet to members for generations.We’re never treated to any unjustified shouting, loss of temper, stinging rebukes or indeed anything that might actually remind us that Joseph was a human and prone to losing it once in a while like any of the rest of us.We have the gold plates being translated without any instruments whatsoever. Despite being in Kirtland there’s no Kirtland bank collapse, no Zion’s Camp, no wives other than Emma.There’s no trouble in Nauvoo and yet we see both Joseph and Hyrum dutifully trotting off to Carthage to stand trial. Again we’re not told why or what for.And when it finally comes to the climax of the martyrdom, Joseph doesn’t have the guns that even our own history says he had. He just stalwartly accepts Hyrum’s demise and bolts toward the window.Now I accept that in a film that lasts barely an hour you can’t expect an expansive portrayal of history covering all bases. But to create a story so completely devoid of any context and with such glaring omissions as to create a narrative that only shows Joseph and the saints in nothing but the best possible light is clearly wrong.Maybe some don’t see that as a problem, but the trouble is when you have people who have been conditioned for example to thinking that Joseph meekly went to Carthage to face his martyrdom without giving an explanation as to why; you end up with what can only be described as a false narrative.Contrast that approach to the non-church sponsored ‘Work and the Glory’ where the film makers at least made a reputable attempt at portraying the Prophet with his historically recorded personality; and further more included some of the very incidents that the officially sanctioned film clearly didn’t want us to see.I guess if the internet never existed then these kind of standard accounts would live on forever without challenge, but let’s be clear; most of what’s now free and available on Google has been part of our written history for years, but only those with an interest or inclination to look for it would ever have known that.We have to assume though that those who approve the churches brand movies know the history at least to a partial extent but just opt to censor out the problematic areas.With the publication of the gospel essays that began a few years ago, it’s safe to say that church leadership at the top is aware of the problems and incompatibility of the Standard Narrative in today’s information age.As for the essays themselves; the church deserves credit for making a positive step forward in terms of at least showing a willingness to try and tackle some of the traditionally taboo topics.But the publication of the essays hasn’t been without difficulty. Attempting to provide some semblance of context and background to let’s say Joseph Smith’s polygamous activities, is unfortunately at the same time tantamount to admitting that this has always been known but intentionally kept out of the teaching manuals and other media.In short, the essays themselves are a glaring admission that the Standard Narrative has indeed been a distortion of the truth, and in some cases, an out and out lie.It may seem surprising to learn amid this furore, that many local leaders at Bishop and Stake President level, are still barely aware of some of the issues afoot.Cleary in the Runnells scenario, the President was blindsided by just a few of the problems mentioned in the CESL and was clueless as to how to offer any resolution or re-assurance.Without any additional support from further up the leadership chain, his preferred recourse was to merely default back to the traditional narrative and brand JR and his CESL ‘apostate’ or ‘anti-Mormon’ – common out-of-date labels for anyone espousing deviations to standard church teachings.And that’s where the glaring irony is as JR tried in vain to point out. His arguments about historicity etc, are acknowledged in our own published works as being legitimate, and yet church leaders like so many standard chapel Mormons have just been conditioned to viewing anything taught outside of the narrative as ‘anti’.I’d say that despite everything, church leaders both top and bottom still struggle to admit that the Standard Narrative is flawed, let alone concede that it needs correcting.Whilst considering that though, we need to be clear that the mismanagement in the telling of our history doesn’t mean that the fundamental underpinnings of the restoration are false; it’s just that the story of it and those involved has been told in the wrong way, albeit perhaps for well intended reasons.That said however, the essays show at least a tacit recognition that familiar teachings have been skewed.Also, some high ranking leaders such as Elder Ballard have stated quite forcefully that:These and other statements are welcome developments.It should be noted as well that the growth and evolution of the Standard Narrative can’t be blamed on any one or few individuals within the church leadership.True, some persons may well have individually propagated aspects of the narrative but I’d say that there are some very real human factors that need to be considered when trying to address the complex issue of who’s to blame for the way our LDS story has been told throughout the generations.And why doesn’t the church simply admit the narrative is wrong?Unfortunately aside from the fact that a massive admission of that magnitude would be monumentally damaging to the church as an institution; there’s also the problematic reality that many of the members have testimonies built either in or around the Standard Narrative.Think about it. How do you tell a person who has always believed that Josephwas only ever married to Emma; that he was in fact married to 30+ other women?How do you explain to someone who always believed that the Book of Abraham papyrus went up in the Chicago fire; that actually the scrolls do exist but can’t be verified as Abrahamic writings by Egyptologists?And so the list goes on.For some it’s true to say that the Standard Narrative doesn’t have any real bearing on their personal testimony. I for one count myself blessed for having a fundamental belief in the Godhead and in the restoration and have no problem in accepting that there are difficulties and variances to the traditional telling of our history.Unfortunately though there are vast, congregational church members, whose testimonies and belief structures are so inextricably hard wired into that narrative, that if you simply try and ‘unplug’ them, the end result will almost certainly be total disconnection from the church, together with all the usual resentments and antagonism that comes from feeling cheated or lied to.With that in mind, the church doesn’t really have a whole lot of options unless its prepared to bite the bullet and watch a core chunk of its members turn their backs and perhaps worse – become the sort of agitators that some believe Jeremy Runnells to be.A critical analysis of our Standard Narrative versus actual history and events is a discussion for another paper. Equally I’m hoping that people reading this haven’t been expecting a rebuttal to the CES Letter or an explanation for all things.To round off though here’s just a few points to consider which may be prove useful at a future time:People who wish to have absolutely all their questions about history and doctrines answered, together with empirical evidence, are probably in the wrong church.Any debates around subjects within the CES Letter have the potential to go around in circles forever; based on individual confirmation bias etc; until eventually you hit a dead end or simply run out of steam.There are too many gaps or unknown chunks of missing context which mean any event from the past is open to interpretation, depending on what side of the fence you happen to be sitting on.The notion of relying on faith is often much maligned by critics or doubters, who see it as a convenient fall back used by leaders or other members when faced with a hard to answer question or a seemingly irrefutable fact.Certainly the faith card will be the preferred weapon of choice that hardened believing Mormons will use in order to avoid having to get pulled into those dark areas that we’ve been conditioned to stay away from.The fact is though, faith happens to be one of the fundamental principles of the gospel, and I’d say to any believing member; definitely become acquainted with the real history of the church if you feel disposed to do so. However, faith is what can keep us from falling off the cliff just so long as we continue to respect it as a true virtue.I’m betting that every member who’s hooked up to the internet and common social media is eventually going to come into contact with the CESL or hear about it or hear of someone make mention of it.My advice – don’t be afraid of it. Read it, or don’t read it. The bottom line is if you can accept that there are flaws in the Standard Narrative; difficult and uncomfortable facts and seemingly inexplicable features of our history; then the CESL won’t bother you.It’s merely a document that highlights these facts and questions them. Realise the CESL isn’t the keystone to having or losing a testimony. Simple faith and a realisation that the church and its leaders are fallible, are good both good foundations for 21st century Mormon living.Equally I’d caution against falling into the trap of believing that Jeremy Runnells is somehow the devil incarnate. Even if you totally disapprove of the CESL or its very existence, take a moment to reflect on the backstory and then decide if the problem really lies with Runnells and his CESL or the way our history has been inaccurately taught to us.It’s easy (and natural) in all this to blame church leaders, especially the local ones when they appear to completely mismanage divergent questions and perhaps inadvertently fuel a brewing faith crisis.Listening to Jeremy Runnells and the exchanges with his Stake President; I couldn’t help but feel a level of frustration of my own at the lack of engagement regarding the issues being put on the table.Having said that, this particular President like so many other leaders, just reacted in the way he’s been conditioned to.Anyone who follows John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories Podcasts may well have seen some instances where a typical member going through a faith crisis is hooked up for a special meeting with some hapless General Authority, only to find that instead of receiving any meaningful answers to troublesome questions, the GA merely reverts to the Standard Narrative or tells the person they need more faith.Sorry, but as I alluded to earlier; yes faith is fundamental to belief, but in this day and age when members are troubled by questions and real concerns, it becomes incumbent on church leaders to at least try and offer something substantial.Additionally, until the church leadership from on high trains its local leaders on how to think and act outside of the Standard Narrative, we’ll always be in this situation where any divergent questions or outside of the box thinking are treated as something akin to apostasy, with the almost inevitable result that church discipline will be used to simply make the problem go away.Bottom line – church discipline needs to cease being used as a blunt instrument just because local leaders can’t get to grips with the concept of the Standard Narrative being flawed.I hope those reading this will learn (if you haven’t already), that the church and its leaders are fallible, and that it’s the responsibility of us primarily as individuals to strengthen our own faith and knowledge in order to determine the level and magnitude of our own beliefs.One of these days the church is going to work this out, and realise that we don’t need this amazing LDS story of ours to be watered down or censored in anyway.Someone once said that knowledge is power. Jeremy Runnells knew that but we can too, and if we keep our faith and hold true, we have nothing to fear.------------------------------