That's attacking the messenger and creating an issue where none exists. Would you suggest it was foul play simply for me to mention Paragon Defender's name when it was relevant to explaining how I learned about FAIR, but not foul play when I was scathingly called "anti-Mormon" by PD for respectfully asking a question?
I've met some anti-Mormons just as I've met some racists. But "anti-Mormon card" often seems to be a convenient charge to throw at anyone who asks questions about the more difficult parts of LDS history and theology.
If I were to say that there are multiple versions of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s First Vision, and that the LDS Church has chosen one of them as the official First Vision despite there being an earlier version written in his own hand, I would likely be called anti-Mormon. But I'm just stating a fact. Jeff Lindsay discussed them thoroughly, and FAIR, in FAIR form, only lists two. LDS.org recognizes and tries to reconcile nine different accounts on a podcast, if I remember my number correctly (I haven't listed to the podcast recently).
So I'm only stating facts from LDS sources. I'm not drawing conclusions. Yet I would frequently be branded as anti-Mormon for pointing out that there are multiple versions of The First Vision and that the LDS Church has chosen not to use the earliest version in Joseph Smith's own handwriting. Of I'd be called anti-Mormon if i noted that the 1832 version in his own handwriting was edited before being placed in The History of the Church; because it was.
I didn't do anything dreadful. Respectfully, to say that I did is histrionics, like the frequent LDS practice of calling anyone who brings up historical facts that are not faith-promoting "anti-Mormon." Sometimes we don't have an agenda. Sometimes we just like objective history or have questions.
Well I sure do!
And that's to let as many people as possible know about the HERESY that is MORMONism!