From an essay by Leonard Arrington past Church Historian.

"The local reception [of Arrington's book 'Great Basin Kingdom'] was especially interesting. A. William Lund and the LDS Church Historian's Office viewed it as a secular treatment with naturalistic explanations of the people and times. It was not down the line of traditional Mormon history, which was sprinkled with supernatural explanations. Although I received complimentary letters from people such as John A. Widtsoe, G. Homer Durham, and Ezra Taft Benson, A. William Lund decided if it was not 'pro' it must be 'anti', so he put a littler letter 'a' on the index card in the Church Historian's office. One day I asked someone at the Church Historian's Office what the 'a' meant. He said it was designated an anti-Mormon work. The label remained that way until I was appointed Church Historian"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2014 03:49PM by crom.

Any unpleasant facts are anti-Mormon no matter if they are 100% accurate and come from Church sources. All versions of LDS history not written by the church are anti. The History Channel documentary on the on MTN MEADOWS called THE MORMON REBELLION is anti.

Is B H Roberts' "Studies of the Book of Mormon" considered "anti"?

...titled "Aunty Mormons". Sorry that the alt.religion.mormon archives are the only place I can find it on the web:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.mormon/samuel$20taylor$20aunty$20mormons|sort:relevance|spell:true/alt.religion.mormon/CO7EbY_w99I/N0jscydtyZsJ