The CES letter was popular because it was a PDF

[Gadianton]

The coolest part for all the skeptics out there; someone will take photos of the suitcase contents and show them to a neutral third party. The neutral third party who is a forensics expert will say that these are just mundane legal documents common to running a complex for-profit shell game under the guise of a religion. This, proving that there were a second set of photos taken, and it was these other photos that held the proof! And the critics are confounded again.

[I Have Questions]

I’m slightly confused by the suggestion that all the apologists were too much in disarray to be able to respond to the CES letter. All it would take is for a couple of them to liaise via email or, call each other on the phone, to devise and produce a comprehensive response. Were all their phones and laptops confiscated or something?

It was first published in April 2013, and then again in October 2017. It’s now 2025. Are they still in disarray? Where is this comprehensive and coordinated response to it that Peterson claims they would have produced had they had the time and focus?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It was first published in April 2013, and then again in October 2017. It’s now 2025. Are they still in disarray? Where is this comprehensive and coordinated response to it that Peterson claims they would have produced had they had the time and focus?

In all fairness, L. Tom Perry really did have a manuscript that would answer everyone’s questions. He showed it to me once shortly after the Swedish Rescue.

Well, I actually saw it in a vision, with my spiritual eye. So, trust me, L. Tom Perry was speaking the truth and there really is a manuscript out there that answers every single question. I'm sure the Church will be releasing it soon.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

In all fairness, L. Tom Perry really did have a manuscript that would answer everyone’s questions. He showed it to me once shortly after the Swedish Rescue.

Well, I actually saw it in a vision, with my spiritual eye. So, trust me, L. Tom Perry was speaking the truth and there really is a manuscript out there that answers every single question. I'm sure the Church will be releasing it soon.

From what I hear, the Church is on the verge of releasing this vital document. Insiders suggest that this new evidence is groundbreaking, and it is anticipated to silence the critics once and for all. There hasn't been this level of anticipation at the Church Office Building since the release of Will Schryver's Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

[Moksha]

[Tom Perry publicly stated that his briefcase had documents that answered all the troubling questions. We know this is true, because why would an Apostle of God lie to anyone about that?

The briefcase may have contained a sorting hat and a seer stone which could have given the answers.

At that point, an angel will take the briefcase back to heaven so that nobody else will ever see it. There is no reason why this should not convince any reasonable person. Then, everyone can go back to doubting their doubts and never question again.

Having the answers taken back to heaven so they cannot be double-checked is indeed the heavenly modus operandi. Same today as always.

This enables the apologists to engage in a lively game of "Let's Pretend".

[Physics Guy]

And the best rebuttal, therefore, to questioning members is for the Mopes to try this as a diversionary tactic: "The CES Letter doesn't ask the right questions. You know in your heart what the right questions are."

Older religions are bound to do some of this, too. Beliefs or practices that might have seemed centrally important in the past, but no longer seem tenable, become deprecated. Whether or not they are still presented as answers, their questions are no longer the point, and so they no longer matter.

That's not necessarily a feature of fraud. Fads come and go even in science. New understanding doesn't just erase the old circles around Answer A and draw new circles around C. Often it does render the whole previous question meaningless or irrelevant. This does also make it inherently hard to pin down any sufficiently large belief system, however, whether it includes truth or not.

The problem I see for LDS Mormonism in particular, though, is that literalism seems to have been one of its biggest selling points. Authority vaguely vested in the whole Church or ulama, collectively, is for those bogus other religions: Mormons have a live Prophet who literally speaks for God. Getting away from all the shiftiness of spiritual interpretations and what-not, that's a big part of Mormonism's appeal. It's like the salesperson who doesn't talk like the others, who cuts through the crap, with none of that doublespeak, and offers a clear, simple deal with no hidden strings.

Woe betide that salesperson, however, if the customer happens to notice there are some strings after all, in spite of all the brash talk.

[Dr Exiled]

As far as I remember, the CES letter doesn’t overtly push a conclusion that the LDS church is false and horrible. It just presents a set of difficult questions and leaves them there. As a critical approach, I think this is an instance of less being more.

And the best rebuttal, therefore, to questioning members is for the Mopes to try this as a diversionary tactic: "The CES Letter doesn't ask the right questions. You know in your heart what the right questions are." Voila! It causes the questioning member to feel ashamed that he/she doesn't, in his/her heart, know what the right questions are. Heaven forbid he/she would show that by asking what the right questions might be. Guilt and shame, the two emotional manipulation tools of religion.

Is the church the best or the greatest church ever? Or how close is Joseph Smith in greatness to Jesus?

[Marcus]

It was first published in April 2013, and then again in October 2017. It’s now 2025. Are they still in disarray? Where is this comprehensive and coordinated response to it that Peterson claims they would have produced had they had the time and focus?

In all fairness, L. Tom Perry really did have a manuscript that would answer everyone’s questions. He showed it to me once shortly after the Swedish Rescue.

Well, I actually saw it in a vision, with my spiritual eye.

Did your spiritual eye see it from a slight distance, only briefly, where it was lying flat on a table? And really, could your spiritual eye distinguish between a manuscript and a paper? Maybe it was an "article" which, as Peterson has clearly explained, could be absolutely anything as long as you saw it on a Friday.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Did your spiritual eye see it from a slight distance, only briefly, where it was lying flat on a table? And really, could your spiritual eye distinguish between a manuscript and a paper? Maybe it was an "article" which, as Peterson has clearly explained, could be absolutely anything as long as you saw it on a Friday.

Well Marcus, over the years I have given at least four very different accounts of my experience/vision. Why did I recount multiple versions of my vision? Why are there so many major differences between them? Do these major differences suggest that I fabricated the experience, or is there a more likely explanation? Let’s explore what the Mopologists have said about the many differences in my accounts.

First, it's very important to remember that the main elements of my vision are still incredibly consistent. For example, in all my different accounts I was there. Most important, Mopologists say that when stories are told over time and to different people in different circumstances, then there are bound to be some differences between them. In fact, Mopologists have told me that the major differences in my vision accounts actually help support that my vision did happen, because they show that I did not deliberately create a memorized version of the story to tell. Makes total sense.

So Marcus, please doubt your doubts. There really is a briefcase with all of the answers. It matters not that the briefcase is now in heaven guarded by angels with flaming swords. I hope to see you back in the pews next Sunday.

[Moksha]

In fact, Mopologists have told me that the major differences in my vision accounts actually help support that my vision did happen, because they show that I did not deliberately create a memorized version of the story to tell. Makes total sense.

So Marcus, please doubt your doubts. There really is a briefcase with all of the answers. It matters not that the briefcase is now in heaven guarded by angels with flaming swords. I hope to see you back in the pews next Sunday.

That is a faith-affirming story worthy of being published in the Interpreter Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy.