It is very difficult for those who have never been Mormon to understand the quandry that many Mormons feel themselves in, in regard to writings that critique – or criticize – Mormon doctrine. I devoted an entire section of my book to this very phenomenon. Here is a section from it:
Issue #8: Dealing with “Antis” or Oppositional Media
Published criticism of Mormon doctrine and practices (so-called “anti-Mormon literature”) has been a thorn in the side of the Mormon Church for decades. For many years the official stance of the LDS Church was simply to ignore pamphlets and books but in the 1990’s organized and well-funded response groups sprang up. So-called “anti-anti” champions took a new tack: Emphasize the victimization of Mormons and their doctrines by their aggressive opponents.
In an online article entitled, “Are Anti-Mormons Christians?” (the article’s answer is “a clear and resounding no”), LDS author Russell McGregor asks, “. . .can anyone imagine a group of Latter-day Saints picketing, say, a Methodist Church? Of course not.” That would be un-Christian, he says. Elsewhere he states: “Never mind that there is no book or pamphlet published by the Church that attacks, denigrates, undermines or belittles the beliefs of any other church; we are attacking them simply by believing such ‘ideas’ as the First Vision.”
When I was a Mormon, I believed just as McGregor apparently does – I could not understand why anyone would oppose an organization that did so many good things for people. However, I never considered the implications of the very document to which McGregor specifically refers, in an early anti-Christian book published by the LDS Church, the one in which Joseph Smith said he was told about all Christian churches: “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong. . .all their creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt. . .” That of course is standard Mormon doctrine from the official version of the First Vision itself in the Pearl of Great Price, firing the first shot in this battle directly at the character and doctrines of Christians.
According to ex-Mormon John R. Farkas:
“By name it [the LDS Church] has attacked all the major denominations at some point in time. The following is a summary of the statements made by the Mormon church and Mormon leaders through the years: all churches are wrong; Satan sits at the head of Christian churches; none of the Christian churches have authority to act in God’s name; none is inspired; none can save souls; marriages performed by them are illegal and children by those marriages are illegitimate; the Roman Catholic Church is the mother of harlots; the Protestants are the harlot’s daughter and apostate; the churches are the ‘whore of Babylon”; the Bible has parts removed or is mistranslated; the false Christian gods bear the same name as the true Gods of the Bible—Beyond this they have little resemblance” (to true Christianity.)
“Abomination,” “corrupt” – not merely the language of the nineteenth century. *The defense of historical Christianity against Mormon claims was characterized by one General Authority as “theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit.” This man, Vaughn J. Featherstone, advised as do many LDS officials that members refuse to read materials critical of the Church.
*
Do some anti-Mormon materials deserve the label of “pornography”? Some, unfortunately, do deserve that characterization – not because they dealt with sexual themes but because they, like trashy demeaning pictures, put unsubstantiated or exaggerated disturbing images into the mind. Some of the anti-Mormon materials of the 1980s in particular (I’ll call them “gasoline literature,” others have called it “New Age Anti-Mormonism” because of emphasis on a link between the LDS Church and satantic forces) which used overstatement, took words out of context and did not properly document their claims could qualify for that label. Like pornography, some were sensationalistic; and even worse, they encouraged a kind of cock-sure and superior attitude in their readers. Such things make me cringe. They represent the extreme end of the spectrum. Others are characterized by being merely jarring and confrontational. (However, in spite of their excesses, some of the most unrestrained still have brought conviction to the hearts of some LDS readers.)
(From
The Mormon Mirage: A Former Member Looks at the Mormon Church Today)
Notes: Russell McGregor quote online at “Are Anti-Mormons Christians?”
fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Are_Anti-Mormons_Christians.html
Farkas quote: As quoted by Edmond C. Gruss and Lane A. Thuet, What Every Mormon (and Non-Mormon) Should Know (n.p., Xulon Press, 2006), 17. Farkas has footnoted each of these claims in the Gruss-Thuet book.
Featherstone quote: “The Last Drop in the Chalice,” speech given by Vaughn J. Featherstone, Brigham Young University, September 24,1985, online at
speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6988
Maybe someone else could help you, many here are articulate enough on their own without resorting to someone eles’s work.