Church Reveals What To Do With Disturbing Anti-Mormon Literature?

Leave a comment on Church Reveals What To Do With Disturbing Anti-Mormon Literature?

This Q&A from the 2007 New Era is a revealing example of how the LDS Church attempts to control the flow of information to its members—particularly the kind that might prompt questions or critical thought. The recommendation is clear: if you find literature critical of the Church “disturbing,” it’s a sign you shouldn’t read it. This is not a call to seek truth—it’s a warning to stay inside the lines.

“One of my friends, who is active in the Church, has some anti-Mormon literature and thinks we should read it so we know how to respond to it. But I find that literature disturbing. What should I tell my friend?” - New Era, 2007, July: Q&A: Dealing With Anti-Mormon Literature | wasmormon.org
“One of my friends, who is active in the Church, has some anti-Mormon literature and thinks we should read it so we know how to respond to it. But I find that literature disturbing. What should I tell my friend?” – New Era, 2007, July: Q&A: Dealing With Anti-Mormon Literature

“One of my friends, who is active in the Church, has some anti-Mormon literature and thinks we should read it so we know how to respond to it. But I find that literature disturbing. What should I tell my friend?”

Say you would rather read something you trust, like the scriptures. Spending a lot of time and energy reading anti-Mormon literature would be a waste. If you run across it, discuss it with someone who is knowledgeable about the gospel. Never take anti-Mormon literature at face value. Honest inquiry is good, but everything needs a proper perspective and context. If the misrepresentations in anti-Mormon literature really disturb you, then tell your friend how you feel so that he’ll leave you alone about it.

New Era, July 2007, Q&A: Questions and Answers
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2007/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/2e07a329-3c95-4f19-8b15-82a78b944c36/0/15
“Say you would rather read something you trust, like the scriptures. Spending a lot of time and energy reading anti-Mormon literature would be a waste. If you run across it, discuss it with someone who is knowledgeable about the gospel. Never take anti-Mormon literature at face value. Honest inquiry is good, but everything needs a proper perspective and context. If the misrepresentations in anti-Mormon literature really disturb you, then tell your friend how you feel so that he’ll leave you alone about it.” - New Era, 2007, July: Q&A: Dealing With Anti-Mormon Literature | wasmormon.org
“Say you would rather read something you trust, like the scriptures. Spending a lot of time and energy reading anti-Mormon literature would be a waste. If you run across it, discuss it with someone who is knowledgeable about the gospel. Never take anti-Mormon literature at face value. Honest inquiry is good, but everything needs a proper perspective and context. If the misrepresentations in anti-Mormon literature really disturb you, then tell your friend how you feel so that he’ll leave you alone about it.” – New Era, 2007, July: Q&A: Dealing With Anti-Mormon Literature

“Anti-Mormon” Literature

One of the first red flags in this exchange is the blanket labeling of dissenting material as “anti-Mormon.” In LDS discourse, the term “anti” doesn’t necessarily mean hateful or dishonest—it’s often used to describe any narrative that challenges or contradicts the Church’s official story, regardless of how well-sourced or respectfully written it may be. The Church frequently uses this term not just for hostile or dishonest attacks but for any source that presents inconvenient facts, alternative interpretations, or criticisms of LDS history and doctrine. Books by scholars, former members, or even faithful historians that don’t align with the official narrative are all swept into the same category. It’s an easy way to discredit information without having to engage with it honestly.

“The present effort of trying to find some other explanation for the organization of the Church, for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and for the priesthood with its keys and powers will be similar to other anti-Mormon fads which have come and blossomed and faded. Truth will prevail. A knowledge of that truth comes by effort and study, yes. But it comes primarily as a gift from God to those who seek in faith.” - President Gordon B. Hinckley, "Lord, Increase Our Faith," Ensign November 1987 | wasmormon.org
“The present effort of trying to find some other explanation for the organization of the Church, for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and for the priesthood with its keys and powers will be similar to other anti-Mormon fads which have come and blossomed and faded. Truth will prevail. A knowledge of that truth comes by effort and study, yes. But it comes primarily as a gift from God to those who seek in faith.” – President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Lord, Increase Our Faith,” Ensign November 1987

The present effort of trying to find some other explanation for the organization of the Church, for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and for the priesthood with its keys and powers will be similar to other anti-Mormon fads which have come and blossomed and faded. Truth will prevail. A knowledge of that truth comes by effort and study, yes. But it comes primarily as a gift from God to those who seek in faith.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Lord, Increase Our Faith,” Ensign November 1987, 52-33

Hinckley wants to call these persistent “anti” issues “fads” that fade. But none of them have gone anywhere since the beginning, and the list continues to grow as long as the church organization exists. Many of the issues labeled “anti” were once hidden or denied by the Church itself but are now acknowledged (in part) on its website. Yet those who first uncovered or wrote about these facts were dismissed as liars, deceivers, or enemies of God, and some were even excommunicated from the church. Ironically, some of the writings from those excommunicated are referenced in the Gospel Topic Essays, which admit that much of the previous information labeled as “anti” is now reluctantly admitted.

The term “anti” functions not as an honest classification of intent, but as a distraction tactic—a way to delegitimize uncomfortable information without addressing its validity. Instead of teaching members how to think critically and evaluate sources, the Church simply teaches them what to think: if it challenges your testimony, it must be wrong—no worse, evil.

A Track Record of False Yet Faith-Promoting Narratives

But this official narrative has been repeatedly shown to be incomplete, misleading, or outright false. Examples include the Church’s long-held claim that Joseph Smith practiced monogamy, its portrayal of the translation of the Book of Mormon using gold plates (rather than a seer stone in a hat), and its previous insistence that the priesthood ban on Black members was God’s will—something now quietly recast as policy. The Church’s own Gospel Topics Essays, quietly published in the 2010s, acknowledged many of these uncomfortable truths only after years of public pressure and increasing member disillusionment.

Over the years, the LDS Church has presented a highly correlated, faith-promoting version of its history—one that omits or distorts many uncomfortable truths:

  • It taught that Joseph Smith was monogamous, ignoring his 30+ plural wives (some married to other men, some teenagers).
  • It depicted the Book of Mormon translation as scholarly work using golden plates, omitting that he often used a seer stone in a hat.
  • It justified a priesthood and temple ban on Black members for over 130 years, later calling that history “folklore” after previously declaring it doctrinal.
  • The Church discouraged interracial marriage, with leaders like Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball calling it sinful or unwise.
  • It fought against civil rights efforts, with official First Presidency statements in 1949 and 1969 defending race-based priesthood restrictions as divine will.
  • The Book of Mormon is the history of the principal ancestors of Native Americans.
  • Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 in a glorious, singular vision and was persecuted for sharing it at the time.
  • Joseph translated ancient Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham, a sacred text written by Abraham himself.
  • Paying tithing is a sacred duty and opens the windows of heaven.
  • The Church uses its resources to build the kingdom of God and care for the poor.
  • The prophet speaks for God and will never lead the Church astray.
  • Early church members and leaders were peaceful saints persecuted for their faith and innocent victims of religious persecution.
  • The Church loves and welcomes everyone, including LGBTQ+ members.
  • The Church does not interfere in politics or endorse candidates.
  • The LDS Church has no paid ministry, unlike other churches, proving its purity.
  • LDS women are cherished as equal partners in the gospel with divine roles.
  • The church has always been focused on Jesus Christ, and the name was divinely revealed.
  • Temple ordinances are revealed by God and never change.
  • Latter-day Saints have always obeyed the Word of Wisdom (no alcohol, tobacco, coffee, etc.).
  • People leave the church because they’re offended, lazy, or want to sin.

Only in recent years—thanks in part to mounting public pressure—has the Church begun to quietly admit to some of these truths through essays buried deep on its website.

Discouraging Inquiry, Promoting Dependence

The response to the young person’s question includes several concerning suggestions:

  • “Say you would rather read something you trust, like the scriptures” — implying that disturbing information should be avoided, not confronted.
  • “Never take anti-Mormon literature at face value” — which is a fair caution on its own, but is not matched by a call to examine LDS materials critically or question official narratives.
  • “Discuss it with someone knowledgeable about the gospel” — i.e., rely on Church-approved voices to interpret the material for you.

These are not the attitudes of a truth-seeking community. They are the tools of an information bubble, where challenging voices are automatically dismissed and members are told to distrust their own discomfort or curiosity. This is classic information control, one of the four pillars of the BITE model that cults use to maintain loyalty.

Why It Matters

The idea that “honest inquiry is good” is contradicted by the rest of the answer, which essentially says, “but only if it doesn’t disturb you, and only if it aligns with the approved narrative.” The problem is that many aspects of the official LDS narrative—especially prior to the internet age—were not honest or complete. For decades, members were told that Joseph Smith had one wife, that the Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyri, that the priesthood ban was God’s will, and that the First Vision was a singular, well-documented event. All of these claims are now heavily revised or nuanced in current Church materials, yet those who uncovered the truth first were ostracized or excommunicated.

A Cult Tactic? Enter the BITE Model

By telling members that disturbing information is a sign not to investigate further, the Church is inverting the very principles of honest inquiry. Instead of confronting difficult questions with transparency, it encourages members to retreat to pre-approved materials like scriptures or conversations with “someone knowledgeable”—which, in this context, usually means someone trained to reinforce the existing beliefs rather than explore alternatives.

This type of behavior fits squarely within the BITE model of cult behavior (developed by Steven Hassan), which outlines how high-control groups manipulate Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion to maintain control over members.

The BITE™ Model of Authoritarian control is a framework to identify and analyze the ways cults and other high-control groups manipulate their members with mind control or undue influence. BITE stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control. Behavior control explores how manipulative groups dominate actions and behaviors through strict rules, rewards, and punishments, limiting individual autonomy. Information control examines the tactics manipulative organizations use such as censorship and propaganda, restricting members’ access to outside perspectives. Thought Control focuses on psychological techniques used by such groups to shape beliefs and attitudes, suppressing critical thinking and promoting conformity. Emotional Control explores how these groups manipulate emotions, fostering dependency and loyalty through guilt, and fear-based indoctrination.
The BITE™ Model of Authoritarian control is a framework to identify and analyze the ways cults and other high-control groups manipulate their members with mind control or undue influence. BITE stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control. Behavior control explores how manipulative groups dominate actions and behaviors through strict rules, rewards, and punishments, limiting individual autonomy. Information control examines the tactics manipulative organizations use such as censorship and propaganda, restricting members’ access to outside perspectives. Thought Control focuses on psychological techniques used by such groups to shape beliefs and attitudes, suppressing critical thinking and promoting conformity. Emotional Control explores how these groups manipulate emotions, fostering dependency and loyalty through guilt, and fear-based indoctrination. The BITE Model to Cults from Dr Steven Hassan
  • Behavior: Members are discouraged from reading or exploring outside materials.
  • Information: Only Church-approved sources are deemed trustworthy.
  • Thought: Critical thinking is suppressed in favor of predetermined conclusions.
  • Emotion: Negative feelings about Church history are reframed as signs of personal weakness or spiritual danger.

This approach not only stifles honest exploration—it also isolates members from their own intuition, critical reasoning, and right to question.

In the end, if the Church’s truth claims are as strong and inspired as it insists, they should withstand scrutiny. But when an organization tells you not to read something simply because it makes you uncomfortable, you should ask: Why are they so afraid of the questions? And perhaps more importantly: What are they afraid you’ll find?

So when the Church says you shouldn’t read outside materials, what it’s really saying is: “Don’t ask questions we didn’t approve first.” And when it calls this material “anti-Mormon,” it’s often just telling the truth about itself—but in someone else’s voice.

If It’s True, It Should Stand Up to Scrutiny

The most honest test of any belief system is its ability to withstand hard questions. If something is true, it doesn’t need to be protected from investigation. The truth invites questions. It welcomes transparency.

Yet, the LDS Church’s consistent message—whether in Sunday School, in General Conference, or the pages of New Era—is: If it causes doubt, don’t read it. Don’t look into it. Don’t trust it.

But what if doubt isn’t the enemy of faith? What if discomfort is the beginning of understanding?

This Q&A is not a guide to honest inquiry—it’s a roadmap for intellectual avoidance. It teaches fear of information, distrust of outsiders, and reliance on the Church as the sole source of truth. These are defining characteristics of a high-control group, not a community confident in its own transparency.

If the Church’s narrative is true, it should hold up under scrutiny. And if it’s not, then people deserve to know that. Either way, labeling uncomfortable facts as “anti” and discouraging people from reading them is not a spiritually healthy response—it’s a control mechanism.

Real truth has nothing to fear from honest questions. If you’ve experienced this kind of emotional or intellectual shutdown in your own spiritual journey, know your story matters. What helped you begin asking questions? What did you discover when you did?

Many of us on this site were once warned not to read “anti-Mormon” literature—only to discover that what we were warned about was simply the truth. The church has a problem with truth, honesty, and history. Did you encounter information that made you question the Church’s truth claims? Were you told not to look deeper? Did this warning give you pause? What happened when you finally allowed yourself to dig in?

We’d love to hear your story. Let’s tell the truth together. Because nothing honest needs to be hidden. Consider sharing your story at wasmormon.org.

More reading:

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply