What you’ve mistaken for anger is conviction. Conviction that the church should be held to the same standard of honesty that it holds the membership to.
Not too long ago people were being excommunicated for challenging leadership to be honest and open about its history, or even asking questions about it. I think those challenges were partly responsible for the church finally fessing up to some of its problematic past (e.g., see the gospel topic essays, a huge step for them to publicly publish this).
So perhaps that’s where you’ve judged me incorrectly too: most members aren’t used to leadership being openly challenged. In the past that’s been labeled as apostasy, even if our history has recorded that common consent should allow for a certain level of dissent; this has been mostly forgotten.