Well, among my favorites are such important disclosures as the existence of a full-scale reproduction of the Oval Office in the Washington DC Temple, from which the Mormons will rule the country after their coup; the drinking of blood from human skull mugs in the Holy of Holies in Salt Lake City; and the use of Boy Scout training to prepare a Mormon paramilitary force. I could multiply such things for hours, but those will do.
Think about this, Dan. Which is more likely to make a believing Mormon doubt? These sort of wild claims or the solid, factually based claims of Quinn and Compton?
We're talking about why leaders don't want members to read anti-mormon literature. Your stance is that the works of Quinn and Compton would not be reasonably considered anti-mormon literature, so the brethren aren't trying to dissuade members from reading that sort of literature.
Instead, the brethren are apparently worried that members will read Ed Deckers' claims that people drink blood from human skull mugs in the Holy of Holies, and, I guess, BELIEVE IT.This is why I think you're wrong in your conclusions. I think that the brethren would really prefer that members not read Quinn's careful works that demonstrate, among many other things, that there is no contemporary evidence of a M priesthood restoration. Or demonstrates the redaction of history and scriptures. I think they would far rather members not read Compton's book that talks about Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, and carefully supports that claim with facts.
You, on the other hand, think the brethren are worried about members reading that Mormons drink blood out of human skulls and lose faith over that.
Just how stupid do the brethren think their followers are?
There's no "taboo" on reading the Tanners. I can see one of their books from where I'm typing right now.
But Quinn, despite his flaws, is a serious scholar. Jerald Tanner, despite his strengths, was not.
So not even the Tanners count as "anti-mormon" literature now? Just what was the GA in the OP warning against?
Of course the brethren consider the Tanners "anti Mormon". You know they do. I believe their claims are far more troubling than the wild Decker claims you cite above. Their claims are usually factually based, with the exception of their evangelical-based diatribes. They even usually provide photocopies of the pages they cite in their material. In fact, I've heard it rumored that even faithful "new historians" owe the Tanners a debt of gratitude for making some material accessible. So whether or not Tanner was a scholar with what he did with the material, he presented an abundance of historical material.