I don't' want to get far off topic but it brought to mind a question I had wanted to ask you a while back. Have you ever seen any other faith that takes it personal when somebody discusses their church history? I have never seen Catholics as a whole get hostile or personally offended when people discuss the negative aspects in the history of the Catholic church, but yet Mormons (especially apologists) are unable to discuss anything negative in their church history. It's always personal for LDS. Just something I have never seen with any other religion but Mormonism and wondered what your experience has been since you were not raised in Mormon culture.
In my experience, most mainstream Christian believers don't have the slightest interest in their own church history, and there really isn't a big reason to be interested in it. Mormonism is one of those religions that, because it makes the "one true" claim, has its history intricately tied to its truth claims. So I think a more analogous question would be if people take it personally if someone discusses their truth claims. In my experience, protestants usually don't, and under most circumstances, neither do catholics. I did lurk on a catholic board for a while back when I was still a theist/borderline deist trying to decide if I wanted to join another church, and they had a very heated "discussion" between irish catholics and, If I recall correctly, English catholics about some bit of history. I think it had more to do with the connected political repercussions, though.
I think part of this has to do with the growth cycle of religion in general. When religions are "young", like Mormonism, they tend to be more radical, they are a reaction against the staid, status-quo, bureaucratic mainstream religions. They demonstrate more characteristics that people today call "cult-like". They often divide families and sometimes totally remove from the larger society. They usually have a powerful, charismatic leader. They make controversial claims, tend to be led by hot blooded visionaries. Then, as time goes on, if they survive, they actually become the staid status quo that some new visionary will react against one day. Ironic. The cycle of life, eh?
So I think it is the "young" religions that tend to be more tied to their histories, which are part of their basic truth claims. I think they tend to be more "one true" sorts and create believers who enmesh their identities within the religion to the extent that many believers cannot differentiate between criticism of the self and criticism of the religion.