This is a great article for all of you to read. Sounds just like the Watchtower magazine, though by a better writer than the typical 5th grade dialogue of the WT:
http://www.ldsmag.com/lineuponline/040318harquestions.html
HARD QUESTIONS AND KEEPING THE FAITH
(partial quote)
As Bill prepared an Elder?s Quorum lesson, he vaguely recalled a quote from a past general conference, which, he thought, would enhance his lesson. Not remembering the exact quote, nor even who said it and when, Bill turned to the Internet and entered a search with a couple of key words and the word ?Mormon.? Bill perused the various ?hits? returned by the search engine and found that some of the web pages were hostile to the Church.
Initially he simply ignored these pages and continued searching through faithful web sites. At times, however, he found it difficult ? upon an initial glance ? to distinguish some hostile web sites verses faithful web sites. Some hostile sites appeared harmless until he read a little further.
One site in particular caught his attention and he began to read more and more of the claims made by the web site?s author. At first Bill dismissed the claims ? he had heard similar anti-Mormon arguments while on his mission and they hadn?t affected him then. As he continued reading, however, he came upon more difficult questions; questions for which he had no answers. Some of the charges made against the Church, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon were disturbing.
?These charges can?t be true,? Bill told himself, yet the article seemed to be well researched and was even footnoted. Bill reminded himself that he knew ? by a spiritual witness from God ? that the Church was true. Nevertheless, he felt an uneasiness in his stomach. Were there answers to these accusations?
Bill fully understood that the greatest religious truths (such as the existence of God) must be accepted on faith, yet he wondered how the Book of Mormon could be true if what the critics were claiming was correct. Bill clung tightly to his spiritual witness but it had been shaken. He wished there was some intellectual answers to these criticisms.
While the foregoing story is fictional, it is nonetheless similar to the experience of at least a few members of the Church. Since Joseph Smith?s First Vision, there have been some who have made it their goal to revile his name his work, and his legacy. And since before the Book of Mormon came from the printing press, there have been critics who have denounced it as fictional, delusional, or blasphemous. Why do some people assail the Church? Should we respond to critics? How should we deal with hard questions and accusations? Were can we find answers?
Why Do Some People Assail the Church?
During Moroni?s initial visit with Joseph, the angel told the seventeen year-old would-be-prophet that his ?name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people? (Joseph Smith-History 1:33). This prophecy has certainly come to pass. Thomas Ford, who was governor of Illinois from 1842 to 1846 and was pivotal in the events leading to Joseph?s martyrdom, claimed:
Joe Smith [was] the most successful imposter in modern times; a man who, though ignorant and coarse, ...was fitted for temporary success, but... never could succeed in establishing a system of policy which looked to permanent success in the future. [i]
Yet nearly two centuries later, the Church is over eleven million strong with temples dotting the globe. As non-LDS sociologist Rodney Stark noted in 1984, the Church shows all the signs of ??the rise of a new world religion,?? and he predicted that ??the Mormons will soon achieve a worldwide following comparable to that of Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and the other dominant world faiths.?? [ii] And in accordance with Moroni?s prophecy, we find that as the number of Saints increase, there is a growth in the number of detractors or critics.
Who are those who attack our faith? The term ?anti-Mormon? was originally self-applied by members of a political party who were opposed to early Mormon bloc voting. [iii] Today there are a variety of critics ? from disbelievers, to detractors, to hard-core anti-Mormons. Some are former members and some have never been members. Some are so-called, or self-styled ?intellectuals? who do not believe in God and some are ministers of other faiths.
Are all critics or disbelievers modern-day anti-Mormons? Certainly not. Disagreeing with LDS doctrine does not make someone an anti-Mormon, but there are certain critics who would like to see the demise of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How can we differentiate between disagreeing nonbelievers and anti-Mormons? In some ways it?s difficult to set parameters to categorize such critics.
Yet as Justice Potter Stewart once said about attempts to define pornography: ?I know it when I see it.? [iv] Anti-Mormons often disregard the facts, current research, and the sacred beliefs of Latter-day Saints. They frequently engage in techniques that are aimed at destroying the faith of tender-testimonied Latter-day Saints or investigators, and are not usually interested in dialogue or reaching the truth. Many critics often ?poison the well? by getting non-LDS or perspective converts to shut their minds, hearts, and doors to anything presented by Mormons or missionaries. Winning the argument by proving Mormonism fraudulent is more important than actually understanding Mormon issues. [v]
Why do these detractors want to see the Church fall? There are a variety of reasons. Some are bitter because they?ve been offended by members of the Church or because they have seen the human-side of LDS leaders. Others may attack the Church out of pride ? pride in their supposed intelligence; they no longer need the ?crutch? of religion. Others may recognize that they know more about early LDS history than is generally taught in Sunday School, Seminary, or Institute and thus come to believe that they also know more about spiritual things than the Prophets.
Such people often assume that they have the inside ?scoop? to the real LDS faith and that only the naïve? or uninformed could believe the stories told in Church. When pride replaces humility, criticism of others ? especially leaders ? is often a consort. President Kimball once noted
Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people, and seldom directed against the doctrine at first, but more often against the leaders. [vi]
Others resort to attacking the Church to hide their own sins. ?Those who leave the Church, clothed in deeds of darkness,? note McConkie and Millet, are all too often ?...found attempting to expose the Church or demean its doctrines?activities necessitated by their guilt, for they realize that if the Church is true they are servants of darkness and must needs repent.? [vii]
Some may be led by the spirit of the adversary, and some are sincere people who believe they are doing mankind (or God) a service by exposing the supposed falsity of Mormonism. Sincere critics may feel that Latter-day Saints are deluded and misguided and need to be rescued from a false Christianity.
There are also some members who leave the Church simply because they no longer believe. Such people generally do not have a spiritual testimony and they are not able to reconcile what they see as difficult issues. Some of these former-members simply walk away from the Church and embark on their own search for happiness. Others depart from the Church but are drawn back to it in vengeance ? angrily claiming that they had been duped or misled. They may want to draw others away from the Church to join them in their animosity toward Mormonism. As Elder Neal Maxwell expressed:
Church members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves, of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone. [viii]