Many years ago I remember looking through books for sale. Amidst them was a section against certain religions. There were pamphletes written against us, of course. But it was interesting to count the number of different publications. It almost seemed a testimony to the truth for anyone looking. There was one against the Catholics, one against Christian Science, one against the Cristadalphians, one against some others that I can't remember off-hand, three against Seventh Day Advantists, five against Jehovah's Witnesses, and twenty-six against us.
Reading claims against the church in most of the publications I have read or answered, I find that anyone reading a collection of them would recognise how fabricated most of it is. "Joseph Smith's mother was a gypsy", say some. Then they or some other one goes on to explain that they were running a farm. That is an interesting occupation for a gypsy. Then we have it that Joseph Smith's father was a gold digger. Also farming. A busy man. Then there are the ones that quote extremely old stats, while the writer pretends to know what he is talking about.
Then there is the irrational attempts to explain things away. "Joseph Smith had epileptic fits", say some in an attempt to say that his vision was a fit. Yet the same publication will go on to claim that he was a liar. So let's get this straight; he says he had a vision, so it must have been a fit, not a lie, yet he was a liar. Why do they even bother with the epilepsy explanation?
"I came out of Mormonism", says one lady. Then she tells us that she "taught Mormon theology for 2 years". Sounds impressive doesn't it? Why not just admit she taught kids in Junior Sunday School?
Then we have silly things like Joseph Smith's use of French when translating the Book of Mormon. Comments that Moroni wouldn't have used French. Do people actually fall for this nonsense? Moroni didn't use any of the English words Joseph Smith attributed to him either. That is what we call "translation".
Then we have all the attempts to claim the Book of Mormon is proven incorrect by archaeology. Interestingly the Bible is also proven incorrect by archaeology. No one then writes down the endless proven errors and conflicts of archaeologists.
Now we have the latest fad - genes. No significant gene link between the Middle East and the Americas is observable. Are we also supposed to take this seriously? Do we have the remains of a known Israelite from 600BC and a known Nephite from that time? The Lamanites are obviously genetically changed. A dill could work that out.
Then there are the sensationalising ones, that hit with strange doctrine and then quote something about Christ being our Saviour, as if to suggest that our doctrine is somehow in conflict of that concept, and he's just quoted a scripture to prove us in contradiction of the Bible. Whatever one may think of their morals, it is hard for me to believe that these writers are quite that stupid. I find them as genuine as a three-dollar bill.