I’ve never really come out strongly for or against the CES letter and it’s not my intention to do so. I have folks on both sides of the issue whose opinions I deeply respect and I can see validity in arguments all around. I also adore Jeremy Runnells, think he’s a lovely guy, and know he’s put a lot of work into the project. (In fact, I checked with him to make sure he was fine with me posting a critique during a potentially vulnerable time for him).

That said, I want to offer a critique of the CES letter, one that I don’t think that Jeremy needs to answer for.

Many people critique the letter saying it is feeding folks from a fire-hose. Too much info to digest at one time. I’m not sure that is the problem, but it might be digging near the right spot.

For me, I think the CES letter is a good compilation of the inaccuracies and problems with the LDS church. It’s a great place to go for a bullet list of issues. What it lacks is analysis. I don’t mean Runnells’ analysis, because I think that exists in the text a bit. What it lacks, I mean, is analysis from the reader.

. . .

The CES letter also, validates many painful and abusive situations people experience. Critics of the letter don’t understand this. If you are in pain, but never felt like you could either articulate or claim your pain, the CES letter tells you that yes, in fact your pain is real, the church isn’t perfect, in fact- it’s far from it. It can incredibly empowering in that respect. Validating this process is critical, especially because all-encompassing Mormonism relies heavily on validation and it’s a language we Mormons are fluent in.

This isn’t blaming the victim. This is saying, if you take the CES letter as an authoritative source, believe it with your whole heart, and live accordingly, that is recreating the Mormon pattern or paradigm. Making it a new prophet instead of a resource. This is what I call faithful exMormoning.