This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
A large portion of CES Letter‘s 84 pages is mere repetition. As a person already familiar with the history and issues being discussed, I found this incredibly frustrating. But for someone who has never heard of these issues and experiences feelings of shock and betrayal as they are being fed this new information, this is a highly effective way for the negative frame to be internalized in the reader.
It is like a soldier who arrives to trenches of battle and is quickly driven crazy because of the incessant barrage of shell fire, while soldiers who have lived on the front line for years barely hear it. It’s not because the experienced soldiers forget that the shellings are happening or are ignorant of the danger, but because they understand this time in the trenches is just temporary and the shellings are not very significant in the wider scheme of the war. It’s a distraction to their focus on being soldiers. Likewise, someone who reads the same information over and over again in CES Letter may start to focus on the negative aspects of that information rather than the over-all picture of the gospel.
Losing Focus
Doubt is a manifestation of focus that is not centered on Jesus Christ. Most church members don’t need to understand every little detail of every issue or every detail of history, but they experience blessings in their lives as they follow the gospel and read the Book of Mormon, and that is enough for faith. When focus shifts away from Christ, this causes a dissonance that prevents us from experiencing peace. Instead of shifting focus back, we often grab hold of the doubts to justify an off-focus mindset. Doubt is often a search for justifying focus that is off-center.
It’s like getting lost and refusing to backtrack. When I was little, my family went camping in the Teton forest. I went to check out the nearby river, and when I walked back to the campsite, I found that it wasn’t where I thought it was. The more I walked the more lost I got. It started with one tree or one rock that didn’t look right, until everything looked wrong. Finally, I decided I needed to just go back to the river and start from stratch. Then I easily found the right path. This is how Antimormon and skeptical rhetoric is. It starts with a few tiny falsehoods, so small they shouldn’t even matter. But before it’s done, this turns into hundreds of falsehoods and a narrative that dehumanizes and degrades. If we are unwilling to backtrack, we just persist in the wrong direction, like a mouse returning over and over again to the same dead-end in a maze.
Skeptical rhetoric reinforces our persistence along the wrong road using repetition. The same out-of-context piece of information or the same moral imperative leads us always back to the same dead-end so that we will not return back to the river, the place where we first diverged from the path and lost focus, and find the correct path, the truth. After just a few reptitions, the reader is already conditioned to resist anyone who tells them to go back. This is why so many skeptics reject clear answers that are given to their concerns and go on complaining about the same thing. Most feedback I see from skeptics say they read a paragraph or two of Conflict of Justice and then clicked away. It is frustrating that they refuse to read clear answers to every concern they are expressing, but it is only because they have been conditioned to persist along the same dead-end road instead of returning to the traumatic place where they first experienced the shock and betrayal of new information in a negative frame.
Perseveration – The psychological term for when a person is stuck in a loop of endless repetition with no useful function is perseveration. It is an issue with the congnitive processing area of the brain, and it inhibits the brain from progressing further along a logical chain or accessing all of the data needed to make a good decision. This looks much like a computer that experiences a fatal error when it boots up, so it restarts and gets stuck on an endless loop of restarting. Or like the typical sci-fi show episode where someone travels back in time and is fated to do the same thing that made them travel back in time. The brain reaches a dead-end that it doesn’t know how to fix. It lacks awareness of the repetition cycle and backs up to the same place.
Psychologists say the key to break perseveration is to introduce some new stimulant to distract the person from their focus on whatever leads to the dead-end. When it comes to religious issues, then means more context. The person will fiercely try to keep narrowing the scope to the narrative presented by the skeptical literature, so it will take persistent introduction of full context to get them to accept a different approach. When a scientist conducts an experiment and it fails, they do not do the same experiment over again and expect a different result. They change their approach and try different things in a reasonable way until something works. Even when it comes to faithful church members, we do not partake of the sacrament and then repeat the same behavior that we had to repent of last week. We use the sacrament ordinance experience to help us change our approach for the future.
The second thing that is required is to back up further away from the dead-end, like a person lost in the woods returning to the spot where they first got lost rather than just backtracking a little ways. Someone in a sci-fi show who is stuck in a time loop is more likely to figure it out if they travel a year back in time rather than a couple minutes. With religious issues, this means considering family relationships as a whole and what marriage means in general rather than just focusing on whether Joseph Smith had a polygmous relationship with Fanny Alger. Unless a person gathers full context and widens their scope to broad issues, they will be fated to repeat the same complaints and never progress.
There are a variety of reasons for why a person would repeat the same thing even though the original stimulus for the response is absent and the repetition does not seem to serve any purpose. When I was lost in the Teton forest, I remember a hesitation to backtrack because I thought the campsite was close and backtracking would worsen my situation. People who read skeptic rhetoric experience feelings of shame, betrayal, and then bitterness, and this is an experience that they do not want to go back to. The church is metyonymous for the anguish they are experiencing, so how could the church be the answer? Instead, they think there is peace right around the corner. This is congnitive bias, and it is hard to crack unless some kind of new information is introduced that shows how reconsidering the gospel could make their lives happier.
A truly insidious thing about Antimormon and skeptic rhetoric is how small lies lead to big lies. At first, one little thing looks off, but it is continuously repeated so that we get used to it, and then bigger falsehoods are introduced, and they are repeated until suddenly we believe things for which there is very little evidence. This instigates the cognative bias that keeps the repetition loop in place, and the more it gets attached to other issues and emotions the stronger it becomes. The repetition may not change, but the road it leads down gets more and more degrading and dehumanizing.
Repeat A Lie Enough Times…
One way to recognize the repetition loop in literature and one’s self is to look for dehumanization. A person stuck in repetition will be like a factory worker performing the same menial task in a factory all day like a robot. Effective repetition in Antimormon and skeptical literature behaves like a factory worker, like a robot, instead of like a human. They will use expressive language and try to sound as human as possible, but once you examine the actual rhetoric, it appears illogical, mechanistic, and nonsensical. On Twitter, they will use expressive language but repeat basically the same argument over and over and sound more like Hal on 2001 Space Odessy than a human being. This repetition “begins as a vital, emotional, and liberating, yet becomes lifeless and dehumanized through repetition.”
The conclusions they reach will be extreme and very hateful. It’s not enough to say the church is great but just not for me. Now, there are plenty of people who leave the church that are like that, and they don’t have this problem. They are alright. But someone who has truly been corrupted by Antimormonism will proclaim Mormonism is a cult and talk about Fanny Alger as proof. Each repetition of their complains will reinforce the trauma and bias that pushes them to the extreme. They may project their own feelings of dehumanization onto the church through dehumanizing rhetoric.
We all know the famous Adolf Hitler quote: “Repeat a lie enough times and people will start to believe it.” Effective lies repeat in a way that leads to further lies. When Hitler blamed Jews for problems in the country, he used a bunch of small lies that led to further narratives: lies building upon lies. The small lies built up to the Big Lie, and the Big Lie was bolstered by further lies.
It doesn’t work as well to repeat a bunch of lies, but to focus on one lie, and then a few branches from that lie, and smaller branches from those lies.
“In the end they must always say the same thing. For instance a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself.” ”But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”
Adolf Hitler
This progression of false narratives can be seen in CES Letter’s discussion about polygamy. The discussion begins with the false narrative that Joseph Smith committed “polyandry.” This is false. Joseph Smith was only sealed to them for eternity and it was different than being married for earth life; it didn’t involve physical relations. But they repeat the false polygandry claim another 15 times. With this initial narrative in place, they quickly move on to other false narratives about polygamy which portray a sense of victimization. Then CES Letter throws in the key narrative, the big lie that ties it all together: “Plural marriages are rooted in the notion of ‘sealing’ for both time and eternity.” Not true. The polygamous sealings were not always for both time and eternity. But the string of lurid charges stack up against Joseph Smith, and after they are repeated so many times, the reader is more likely to accept the big lie that stitches it all together. From there, CES Letter makes an extremely emotional and damning conclusion: “sadistic, immoral, adulterous, despicable, and pedophilic behavior.”
There are three levels of repetition:
Redundancy Within An Allegation – CES Letter uses redundant words and phrases within allegations which makes them sound more credible. The best example of this is the discussion of Antimormon Mark Hofmann. They use redundant synonyms: “defended and rationalized,” “bizarre and embarrassing,” “fakes and forgeries,” “real and legitimate,” “defended and rationalized.” Pleonasm and tautology are rhetorical devices that add extra emphasis to the idea, and they make the idea more credible simply because they are being emphasized. CES Letter often does this in very subtle ways, such as including a dollar sign before a money figure and then saying dollars after the number: “$1.5 billion dollar.”
Charged words are repeated within an argument to associate Mormons more strongly with negative things. For example, the word “mall” or “megamall” appear six times within a single argument. Words such as “mall” or “kill” are key words that manipulate how the church is viewed by the audience.
Allegations Repeated In An Argument – Allegations are repeated within an argument to make them sounds more credible. The repetition of these allegations appear to be compeling evidence instead of actual evidence making a case for their claims. An example near the beginning of CES Letter is their claim that translator additions to the KJV bible appear in the Book of Mormon “word for word.” They repeat the date of the KJV translation four times: “between 1604 and 1611,” “17th century,” “1611 AD translation,” “17th century translators.” They repeat over and over throughout the argument the premise that the Book of Mormon copies modern text. Another example is , CES Letter‘s claim Joseph Smith’s community “believed in folk magic, divining rods, visions, second sight… all shared a common worldview of second sight, magic, and treasure digging… believed they could see things as a vision in their mind. They called it ‘second sight’”. CES Letter doesn’t actually provide any evidence that “second sight” was a thing whatsoever, but they just repeat the allegation over and over.
CES Letter‘s allegation of the church changing names takes the premise of the argument and pretty much repeats it three times: “Why did Joseph take the name of ‘Jesus Christ’ out of the very name of His restored Church?” “What possible reason could there be for the name changes?…Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838? Why would the name of Christ be dropped from His one and only true Church for 4 whole years?” No new information here, just the premise repeated over and over.
Arguments Repeated In Other Arguments – Arguments are repeated throughout the PDF. The argument that Joseph Smith and his buddies lack credibility because they were “treasure hunters” is repeated so many times in conjunction with so many other arguments that we can’t help but suspect that it is true. An argument sounds more credible if it is connected to other arguments and repeated in the context of other issues. A billboard showing someone enjoying Coca-Cola is more effective if we also see an actor drinking Coca-Cola in a movie. An example is CES Letter‘s repetition of the so-called Adam God doctrine argument. They incorrectly claim “President Brigham Young taught what is now known as ‘Adam-God theory,’” and then later use this premise to boost their argument that prophetic direction is contradictory: “For example, I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that Adam is our God and the only God with whom we have to deal with.” Suddenly, both arguments appear more credible because the same thing is repeated in both of them.
Repeated arguments also can appear more credible because of the length and complexity of the repetition. CES Letter repeats their argument about James Strang three times, and repeats their argument about the Shaker scripture, in which they quote from those scriptures at length. Suddenly, we find ourselves comparing scripture from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and finding parallels simply because they were quoted from them at length.
Repetition can be effective if it involves complexity and length, but it can also be effective if it involves arguments that are compressed to a short phrase. We see the same sarcastic references to the Mormon church appear over and over again: “the one and only true Church,” “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator”, “Yesterday’s prophets are today’s disavowed heretics.” Often the slogan is reworded very slightly. Each time it is an attack on the church’s authority.
Examples In CES Letter
| Repetition | CES Letter |
| CES Letter repeats this same argument on p. 81. | “What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?…” |
| CES Letter repeats the date of the KJV bible within the first two issues five times. CES Letter repeats this same argument on p.81. | “When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable…” |
| CES Letter repeats the premise of their argument within the argument.” | “Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived… ” |
| In this and other arguments, CES Letter refers to the original 1830 printing of the Book of Mormon as an “edition” rather than “the first version,” “first printing,” or “original Book of Mormon.” This word “edition” bolsters the frame that there were significant changes from printing to printing, which is untrue. | “In fact, the uniform spelling for Hill Cumorah in the 1839 edition of the Book of Mormon is spelled ‘Camorah’…” |
| “Read and sound” are redundant. | “Here we have two early 19th century contemporary books written at least a decade before the Book of Mormon that not only read and sounds like the Book fo Mormon but also contain so many of the Book of Mormon’s parallels and themes as well…” |
| CES Letter repeats this argument in their attack on the First Vision. | “The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. Joseph Smith’s early theology also held this view…” |
| They list nine church events that allegedly don’t talk about the seer stone. Why list out nine events? Just say “I didn’t hear about it in church.” By listing out a long list of church information sources that allegedly don’t address the allegations, this lends false credence to the allegation. CES Letter also adds four illustrations of the rock and hat hoax to add credence. CES Letter repeats the rock and hat narrative nine more times in their pdf. | “Unlike the story I’ve been taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, General Conferences, Seminary, EFY, Ensigns, Church history tour, Missionary Training Center, and BYU… These facts are not only confirmed in Rough Stone Rolling (p. 71-72), by FairMormon here and here, by Neal A. Maxwell Institute (FARMS), but also in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Update: The Church’s December 2013 essay admits this.” |
| CES Letter repeats their First Vision argument eight more times in their pdf (p. 19, 35, 45, 49, 71, 76, 76, 81). CES Letter repeats several claims within this First Vision argument and then repeats them again in a chart. Redundant: “first and earliest” | “No one – including Joseph Smith’s family members and the Saints – had ever heard about the First Vision for twelve to twenty-two years after it supposedly occurred…The first and earliest written account of the First Vision in Joseph Smith’s journal was written 12 years after the spring of 1820… There is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832… the Church members didn’t know about a First Vision until 22 years after it supposedly happened.” “There are at least 4 different First Vision accounts [list of four accounts]… I did not know there were multiple First Vision accounts.” Then CES Letter posts a chart comparing four accounts. |
| CES Letter repeats this false argument four more times in their pdf (p. 24#2, 29#5, 29#6, 44). | “Despite Joseph’s claim that this record was written by Abraham ‘by his own hand, upon papyrus,’ scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it in 1st century CE, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it…” |
| CES Letter repeats the phony “funerary document” narrative twice (p. 29, 44). CES Letter repeats “common” within this same argument. | “Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text for a deceased man named ‘Hor’ in 1st century CE…” |
| “Egyptologists and Modern Egyptology.” Redundant. It is smart sounding, I guess, but still redundant. CES Letter repeats their claims on p. 28: “The names are wrong… scene is wrong… He names gods that are not part of the Egyptian belief system.” This perpetuates the incorrect assumption that Joseph Smith was interpreting the Egyptian context, and ignores the stunning parallels. CES Letter brings up several different times the same alleged problems with the facsimiles. | (See Facsimile 1 argument) |
| Besides repeatedly talking about Min’s status as fertility god, CES Letter repeatedly describes him as sitting on a throne with genetalia showing, “which can be seen in the figure.” Uh… isn’t the figure what we’ve been talking about this whole time? Why tautologically mention the obvious point that Min can be seen in the figure? It’s juvenille to keep going on and on about genetalia like this. “Egyptologists and Modern Egyptology.” Redundant. CES Letter repeats their claims on p. 28: “None of the names are correct as each one of these gods does not even exist in Egyptian religion or any recorded mythology… Joseph misidentifies every god.” This perpetuates the incorrect assumption that Joseph Smith was interpreting the Egyptian context, and ignores the stunning parallels. It also assumes that if something is not in the Egyptian religion then it must be “mythology.” Poisoning the well. | (See Facsimile 2 argument) |
| “Egyptologists and Modern Egyptology.” Redundant. CES Letter repeats their claims on p. 28. This time they list out every single figure and claims Joseph Smith “misidentifies,” five in total. This perpetuates the incorrect assumption that Joseph Smith was interpreting the Egyptian context, and ignores the stunning parallels. No, it wasn’t about translating the names of the Egyptian gods! Then CES Letter repeats the male/female discrepancy they pointed out before in the chart, which was false. | (See Facsimile 3 argument) |
| CES Letter repeats the premise of this argument several times within the argument. | “The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy…” |
| This argument builds on the vague innuendo that CES Letter already repeated. Like in their previous argument, CES Letter repeats the premise of the argument several times. CES Letter repeats this argument again on p. 68. | “We now know that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal, and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star as claimed by the Book of Abraham…” |
| Redundant. | “Why are there anachronisms… these facsimiles did not even exist in Abraham’s time…” |
| I think what CES Letter meant to say is that they are were scholars of Egyptian studies and Egyptologists. In that case, this is redundant. CES Letter says the Book of Abraham issue “offers a real insight into Joseph’s modus operandi.” They use this term “modus operandi” three times throughout the PDF. The term “Joseph Smith’s modus operandi” was invented by Antimormon Richard P. Howard of the RLDS splinter-sect who said the rediscovered papyrus fragment “discloses the modus operandi of Joseph Smith in determining its context,” but he never tells us what that process was. Neither does CES Letter. | “The following are respected Egyptian scholards/Egyptologists statements regarding Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham…” |
| CES Letter repeats the false accusation of polyandry, marrying women already married, another 15 times. They simply repeat the premise of this argument over, and over, and over. | “Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women. Polyandry: Of those 34 women, 11 of them were married women of other living men…” |
| CES Letter picks words that emphasize the girls’ young age. Repeats “34 women.” CES Letter uses a number rather than a word for how many girls were teenagers: 7. They repeat the age of Helen Kimball also with a number rather than a word, 14, which could subtly lead people to think that there is a connection here, that this issue involved girls as young as 7, which is false. Note also that the dedication page of CES Letter reads “To my beautiful young children.” This argument repeats the word “young” in association with children, which could subtly make the accusation more personal to the reader. CES Letter repeats their claim 4 times, without ever providing evidence that these were “marriages” with physical relations. Each repetition is framed with greater emotional hysteria. “Unions with teenagers as young as 14-years-old.” “Marriages to young girls living in Joseph’s home” “marry underage and teenage girls.” “perverted license to secretly marry other living men’s wives and teenage girls barely out of puberty” After detailed attacks on Joseph Smith’s character, CES Letter repeats the sordid claims as part of a condense list. This solidifies their disgusting characterization of him. | “Out of the 34 women, 7 of them were teenage girls as young as 14-years-old. Joseph was 37-years-old when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior.” “7 of them were teenage girls as young as 14-years-old. Joseph was 37-years-old when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior. Even by 19th century standards, this was shocking…” |
| CES Letter repeats the disgusting comparison to Warren Jeffs twice within this argument. CES Letter goes on to repeat the argument three times throughout their PDF. | “I have a problem with this. This is Warren Jeffs territory. This is not the Joseph Smith I grew up learning about in the Church and having a testimony of. This is not the Joseph Smith that I sang ‘Praise to the Man’ to or taught others about two years in the mission field…” |
| CES Letter repeats this incorrect argument on p.69. CES Letter repeats the word “consent” within the argument to emphasize the false allegation of coercion. | “The only form of polygamy permitted by D&C 132 is a union with a virgin after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife…” |
| Within this argument, CES Letter repeats the false premise that polygamy’s only purpose was to multiply and replenish. They repeat the lie that Emma did not know about the sealings. They repeat the lie that Joseph Smith married women already married, a lie that they repeat throughout CES Letter. CES Letter repeats the lie that Joseph Smith lied to Emma four times. CES Letter repeats the false claim that Joseph Smith “married” Zina Hunnington to “bear the souls of men.” | “D&C 132 is unequivocal on the point that polygamy is permitted only “to multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men.”… Again, looking at how polygamy was actually practiced by Joseph Smith… ” |
| CES Letter repeats this argument on p. 33. Redundancy: “Joseph’s destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor… which printing press destruction…” | “In fact, Joseph’s desire to keep this part of his life a secret is what ultimately contributed to his death when he ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor…” |
| CES Letter repeats the lie that Joseph Smith denied being polygamous. CES Letter repeats their argument about D&C 101. CES Letter repeats their claim that Joseph Smith kept polygamy secret 11 times. “Joseph continued secretly marrying multiple women…” “Joseph Smith did everything he could to keep the practice in the dark.” In the introduction to their PDF, CES Letter coincidentally used this same word “secret” to distance themselves from secrecy. They say: “in sharing my concerns… it’s no secret which side I’m on.” | “Dishonesty in public sermons, 1835 D&C 101:4, denials by Joseph Smith denying he was a polygamist… Joseph continued secretly marrying multiple women as these revelations/scriptures remained in force…” |
| Within this argument, CES Letter repeats the lies that Joseph Smith directed people to sign the affidavit, that it regarded his polygamy that the signers were witnesses, that he kept secrets, that he was deceptive, and that he was dishonest. CES Letter repeats this argument on p. 63. | “In an attempt to influence and abate public rumors of his secret polygamy, Joseph got 31 witnesses to sign an affidavit published in the LDS October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons stating that Joseph did not practice polygamy…” |
| CES Letter repeats five previous issues that don’t apply to this topic: “It’s when you take this snapshot of Joseph’s character and start looking into the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook Plates, the Book of Mormon, the multiple First Vision accounts, Priesthood restoration, and so on that you start to see a very disturbing pattern and picture.” CES Letter repeats six polygamy issues within this argument that they already talked about. | “I’ve been asked once by an LDS apologist if I would be okay with Joseph Smith’s polygamy and polyandry if I received a witness that God really did command Joseph Smith to participate in these practices. The question is not if I would “be okay with” God commanding Joseph Smith to secretly steal other men’s wives and to marry underage and teenage girls.. The answer, based on comparing D&C 132 to what actually happened, along with my personal belief that there is no such thing as an insane polygamist god who demanded such sadistic, immoral, adulterous, despicable, and pedophilic behavior while threatening Joseph’s life with one of his angels with a sword…” |
| Many of the polygamy arguments in the graphic CES Letter shows here are repeated in CES Letter many times. Lots of redundancy. “Under Age 18,” “child brides,” and “Underage.” “Polyandrous,” “Polyandry,” and “Concurrent Husbands.” | Many Wives of Joseph Smith |
| CES Letter mentions the Adam-God theory again on p. 37 and p.78. Within this argument, CES Letter repeats “Adam-God theory” 6 times. | “President Brigham Young taught what is now known as ‘Adam-God theory.’ He taught that Adam is ‘our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.’…” |
| CES Letter repeats this false argument on p. 42. CES Letter repeats several times throughout the PDF the slogan (slightly reworded in different ways): “Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic.” | “…Young taught a doctrine known as “Blood Atonement” where a person’s blood had to be shed to atone for their own sins as it was beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ…” |
| CES Letter repeats this argument on p. 73 | “In a September 1998 Larry King Live interview (14:37), Hinckley was asked about polygamy: Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy]? Hinckley: I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal…’” |
| Within this argument, CES Letter repeats their claim four times that 10 prophets, over a space of 130 years, kept the ban in place. CES Letter repeats this argument several times through the pdf. | “Heavenly Father likes blacks enough to give them the priesthood under Joseph Smith but He decides they’re not okay when Brigham Young shows up. And He still doesn’t think they’re okay for the next 130 years and the next 9 prophets until President Kimball decides to get a revelation…” |
| This argument takes up almost two entire pages of CES Letter because it is repeating the same things over and over. They repeat over and over the premise of their argument that church leaders showed “lack of discernment,” “defended and rationalized,” were “duped,” were “conned,” etc. CES Letter throws in redundant synonyms like “bizarre and embarrassing,” “fakes and forgeries,” “real and legitimate,” “defended and rationalized,” “duped and conned.” | “In the early to mid-1980s, the Church shelled out close to $900,000 in antiquities and cash to Mark Hofmann …” |
| CES Letter brings up the same Adam-God issue several times. | “For example, I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that Adam is our God and the only God with whom we have to deal with. Never mind that he taught…” |
| CES Letter brings up the same Kinderhook issue several times in their PDF. | “Kinderhook Plates…” |
| CES Letter repeats this narrative. | “Just as it would be arrogant of a FLDS, Jehovah Witness, Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, or Muslim to deny a Latter-Day Saint’s spiritual experience, and testimony of the truthfulness of Mormonism, it would likewise be arrogant of a Latter-day Saint to deny their spiritual experiences and testimonies…” |
| CES Letter spreads this argument over three pages through vast use of repetition. They repeat the argument on p. 55. | “What is the ‘rod of nature’? It is a divining rod or dowsing rod…” |
| CES Letter uses several redundant phrases in this argument. “Repeat things,” “over and over,” “just keep telling yourself.” | “In other words, repeat things over and over until you convince yourself that it’s true. Just keep telling yourself, ‘I know it’s true… I know it’s true… I know it’s true’ until you believe it and voila! You now have a testimony that the church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet…” |
| CES Letter repeats the dates and the same allegations over and over instead of providing evidence. This entire argument could be condensed into a short paragraph. Instead, CES Letter repeats the same claims over and over for an entire page. Redundant: “backdated and retrofitted” | “none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith’s family had ever heard prior to 1834 about a priesthood restoration… Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834… Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not teach anyone or record anything prior to 1834 that men ordained to offices in the Church were receiving “priesthood authority.”… it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments. It’s not recorded anywhere in the Book of Commandments… it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments. It’s not recorded anywhere in the Book of Commandments… It wasn’t until the 1835 edition.. none of which existed in any previous Church records…” |
| Redundant: “Fabricated and false.” | “What about the members who felt the Spirit from Dunn’s fabricated and false stories?” |
| CES Letter makes this argument about David Whitmer much longer than it needs to be by repetition of phrases and words, such as “by his own voice.” | “‘David claimed in early June 1829 before their group delcaration that he, Cowdery, and Joseph Smith observed…'” |
| CES Letter already made the argument that Oliver Cowdery used a divining rod. | “Like Joseph and most of the Book of Mormon witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and his family were treasure hunters. Oliver’s preferred tool of trade, as mentioned above, was the divining rod. He was known as a ‘rodsman…’” |
| CES Letter repeats the phony “spiritual sight” claim instead of providing evidence within this argument. CES Letter repeats this argument on p.63 and p.64. CES Letter repeats quotes and frames them up to look as if they are different. Redundancy: “real and tangible.” | “Second Sight: People believed they could see things as a vision in their mind. They called it ‘second sight.’ We call it ‘imagination.’ It made no difference to these people if they saw with their natural eyes or their spiritual eyes as they both were one and the same…’” |
| CES Letter repeats the argument on p.63 and p.64. They also already brought it up on p.53. CES Letter fills in lots of keywords and phrases to make the association with the church stronger, such as “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” and “testimony” and “prophet.” | “Every single living Book of Mormon witness besides Oliver Cowdery accepted Strang’s prophetic claim of being Joseph’s true successor and joined him and his church…’” |
| CES Letter repeats phony quotes that they already repeated twice before. | “While we have ‘testimonies’ from the witnesses recorded in later years through interviews and second eyewitness accounts and affidavits, many of the ‘testimonies’ given by some of the witnesses do not match the claims and wording of the statements in the Book of Mormon…” |
| CES Letter repeats the argument on p. 62 and p. 63. | “The closest thing we have in existence to an original document of the testimonies of the witnesses is a printer’s manuscript written by Oliver Cowdery . Every witness name except Oliver Cowdery on that document is not signed…” |
| Three pages wasn’t enough. CES Letter needs to repeat their argument about James Strang a third time. The argument about the Shaker Roll is repeated on p. 63. | “There are also thousands of witnesses who never recanted their testimonies of seeing UFO’s, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Abominable Snowman, Aliens, and so on…” |
| CES Letter‘s phony quote repeats the “lying, thieving, counterfeiting” accusation. | “This is what First Counselor of the First Presidency and once close associate Sidney Rigdon had to say about Oliver Cowdery: ‘…a lying, thieving, counterfeiting man who was ‘united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent…” |
| CES Letter repeats the Roll Book claims and the fake Martin Harris quote several times. The Shaker testimony statement is referred to repeatedly, and is quoted from at length, even though it really has nothing to do with Mormonism. | “More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them… Why should we believe the Book of Mormon witnesses but not the Shakers witnesses?…” |
| This argument repeats empty claims from earlier arguments. It repeats “it doesn’t matter” four times. | “The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant…. It doesn’t matter because of this one simple fact: Joseph did not use the gold plates for translating the Book of Mormon.” |
| CES Letter repeats key phrases like “100%” Masonic rituals and “endowment ceremony.” | “Why did the Church remove the blood oath penalties and the 5 Points of Fellowship at the veil from the endowment ceremony in 1990?…” |
| CES Letter repeats key phrases like “signs, tokens, handshakes.” Redunant: “uncomfortable and strange.” | “Is God really going to require people to know secret tokens, handshakes, and signs to get into the Celestial Kingdom?…” |
| CES Letter repeats parts of their argument. CES Letter repeats this argument on p.68. | “Science has proven that there was no worldwide flood 4,500 years ago…” |
| In this argument, CES Letter repeats their arguments about Noah and Kolob. CES Letter repeats their phony bee accusation. | “Other events/claims that science has discredited…” |
| Redundant: “When Moses learns that they left some alive, he angrily says: ‘Have you saved all the women alive?’” | “This is truly despicable behavior from God and Moses. Under God’s direction, Moses’ army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive…” |
| CES Letter repeats their Ad Hominem attacks on God several times. | “Exodus 12:12 : God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors? What kind of a god is this? Like the flood, what kind of a loving god would kill innocent children for the actions of others?…” |
| CES Letter repeats earlier racism claims. This entire argument is a repeat of their argument on p.39. CES Letter repeats the general slogans they have repeated already. | “Along with the above First Presidency statement, there are many other statements and explanations made by prophets and apostles clearly ‘justifying’ the Church’s racism…” |
| This entire argument was already made twice by CES Letter on page 32. They already repeated the threatening angel allegation several times. CES Letter repeats the same fake claims of polyandry and co-marriage several times within this argument, instead of providing any evidence. | “She was married for 7.5 months and was about 6 months pregnant with her first husband, Henry Jacobs, when she married Joseph after being told Joseph’s life was in danger from an angel with a drawn sword…” |
| CES Letter essentially repeats the same quote and argument they made on p.38. | “Not only is the manual deceptive in disclosing whether or not Brigham Young was a polygamist but it’s deceptive in hiding Brigham Young’s real teaching on marriage: ‘The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.’ – Journal of Discourses 1 1 :269…” |
| Instead of providing evidence, CES Letter redundantly states that the church keep itself “in the dark… keep them in darkness.” More redundancy: “time and time again.” | “There is zero transparency to members of the Church…” |
| Redundancy: CES Letter includes a dollar sign as well as “dollar” after the figure: “$1.5 billion dollar.” CES Letter repeats the $1.5 billion figure several times to make it stand out. CES Letter adds adjectives to make the mall sound more elitist: “$1 .5 billion dollar high-end megamall.” CES Letter repeats this argument on p.74. | Estimated $1.5 billion megamall City Creek Center…” |
| CES Letter repeats the same question several times about seeing the LDS church’s finances, and repeats the ad hominem attack of Hinckley’s statement as “dishonest.” | “Helmut Nemetchek: ‘In my country, we say the people’s Churches–the Protestants, the Catholics–they publish all their budgets, to all the public…'” |
| CES Letter repeats several of attacks from earlier. | “Would a loving, kind, empathic God really place parents in the horrible position of having to choose whether to feed their children or pay what little they have to a multi- billion megamall owning Church that receives an estimated $8,000,000,000 in annual tithing receipts…” |
| CES Letter lists the alleged name changes in the church and then repeats them. Redundant: “Christ is the Head… Jesus is the central character…His one and only true Church” Lots of repetition within this argument. CES Letter repeats their question “Is it reasonable to assume that God would periodically change the name of his Church?” in a rephrased way: “is it reasonable to assume that God would instruct His Church leaders to entirely leave out the name of Jesus Christ”. CES Letter three times repeats the question “Why did Joseph take the name of ‘Jesus Christ’ out of the very name of His restored Church?” in a rephrased way: “What possible reason could there be for the name changes?…Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838? Why would the name of Christ be dropped from His one and only true Church for 4 whole years?” | 1830: Church of Jesus Christ 1834: The Church of the Latter Day Saints 1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints… |
| CES Letter repeats a bunch of earlier false narratives here. | “Joseph using a rock in a hat instead of the gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon is not a useful truth? The fact that…” |
| This argument is packed full of repeated arguments that CES Letter already argued earlier. CES Letter inflates this argument, and what could be said in two short sentences fills up multiple lengthy paragraphs. | “With all this talk from General Authorities against the scary internet and daring to be balanced by looking at what both defenders and critics are saying about the Church, it is as if questioning and researching and doubting is now the new pornography…” |
| CES Letter repeats arguments they made earlier. Redundant: “the First Presidency, gave a First Presidency Message” | “N. Eldon Tanner, first counselor in the First Presidency, gave a First Presidency Message in the…” |
| CES Letter repeats previous arguments in this argument. Redundant: “alien and foreign”, “concealed and hidden” CES Letter repeats several phrases several times within this argument, such as “at 31-years old” and their list of Mormon institutions they apparently expected to answer the questions, which includes Church, Seminary, reading Scriptures, General Conferences, EFY, mission, and BYU. | “Somehow, I’m supposed to rebuild my testimony on newly discovered information that is not only bizarre and alien to the Chapel Mormonism I had a testimony of; it’s almost comical…” |
| Pretty much most of the content of this argument is repetition of earlier arguments, and the logical fallacies they included with those earlier arguments. CES Letter repeats a slogan they used earlier: “betting my life, time, money”. | “There are just way too many problems. We’re not just talking about one issue here. We’re talking about dozens of serious issues that undermine the very foundation of the LDS Church and its truth claims…” |
(All claims in this article are personal opinion and speculation about the nature of rhetoric. It does not assume anyone’s motivations or make claims about their mindset or ideology. Quotes regarding CES Letter are derived the March 2015 version of CES Letter and may not reflect more recent versions.)