Are All Truths Equally Useful For Everything?

[mnn727]

Again, your argument makes no sense when the whole point is that we didn't know there was something to KNOW. We didn't know there was something to go LOOK UP. We weren't troubled by anything. You were. You looked. You found out. You came to terms with it. We are now finding these things out and dealing with them our way.

You way of dealing with them is appaerntly believing whatever Ed Decker, Sandra Tanner, et al is telling you - thus you methods and lack of honest research have not changed one bit.

I really don't know anyway else of saying this: its YOUR shortcoming that you are not doing honest research WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING THAT TROUBLES YOU, not the Churches. and since apparently the people arguing that the Big Bad Church is to blame for their lack of ability to do honest complete research will never change their mind, I think its time for me at least to move on to other subjects.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. My hope is that the Church one day will realize #3 and begin to change into the organization I know it can be.

While we're waiting for William James to back up his claim, perhaps you can present some substantiation for his assertion that the Church "suppress[es] aspects of its history," since you are applauding it so.

[staccato]

The issue of Joseph Smith's polyandry. It is not mentioned. It is not mentioned in any canon, in any gospel manual, in any magazine. Yet Joseph practiced it. And the church knows that Joseph practiced it.

Why does that issue matter? Because it goes directly to Joseph Smith's character. At least it did to me, and knowledge of his "theology" and practice of all of his plural marriages would have been hugely useful truths in determining the authenticity of Joseph when I was learning about church history.

Instead, I began to distrust the church's presentation and wondered what else was being omitted.

[jwhitlock]

Which, alas, seems to be rather uncritically accepting the arguments and claims of the critics.

Not only that, but because they didn't know it, the Church must somehow be derelict and fraudulent in its duty.

The critics on this thread continue to have no cogent explanation of how the Church should be able to tailor, customized for each individual, a plan of teaching that will address not only everything that person wants to know, but everything they might eventually want to know about specific details of Church history and doctrine.

Instead, we continue to get this generalized whine of "I never knew about this stuff, and the Church should have told me". The critics can't even agree on what "stuff" they are all talking about. And of course, we know that if we were to address all the stuff they wanted, there would still be more stuff that they would come up with to rationalize their exit from the Church.

It is, after all, an individual responsibility to pursue one's own intellectual growth. That some critics here respond so negatively to that concept is telling. It must be frustrating indeed to realize that one is responsible for his / her own path in life.

[mnn727]

The issue of Joseph Smith's polyandry. It is not mentioned. It is not mentioned in any canon, in any gospel manual, in any magazine. Yet Joseph practiced it. And the church knows that Joseph practiced it.

Ok, so I read one more post - sue me ---- I seem to remember a Ensign article a few years back that devoted many pages to Joseph Smith and his plural marriages, on top of the fact that the Revelation was given to him and the institute manual and teh D&C manual both mention it. along with a listing of all the women sealed to him being on the LDS owned FamilySearch.org website -- yep, that sure is hidden. <<shuts the door on his way out>>

[Paul Ray]

A few weeks ago, I watched the film "Legacy" in our ward's youth Sunday School class. It struck me that all of the opposition to the church (at least in the parts I watched) portrayed in the film consisted of reasons other than polygyny. What message does this send to someone who is becoming acquainted with the church for the first time by watching this very moving film (which played for years at Temple Square for non-LDS audiences)? Answer: It makes the audience believe that the opponents of the church were evil, misguided, and that they had no legitimate complaints.

Even if the behavior of those who opposed the Church was the result of their beliefs concerning men having more than one wife, that still wouldn't justify their actions against the men and women and children of our Church.

There is no justification for people who persecuted the early members of our Church, as they simply sought to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and the revelations they received from God.

[jwhitlock]

The issue of Joseph Smith's polyandry. It is not mentioned. It is not mentioned in any canon, in any gospel manual, in any magazine. Yet Joseph practiced it. And the church knows that Joseph practiced it.

Quite a telling contradiction here. It's not mentioned, but we know about it. It is treated in detail in LDS-friendly sources and is available to anyone who wants to dig further about it.

Why does that issue matter? Because it goes directly to Joseph Smith's character. At least it did to me, and knowledge of his "theology" and practice of all of his plural marriages would have been hugely useful truths in determining the authenticity of Joseph when I was learning about church history.

This has been addressed in detail elsewhere on this board.

Your perceived (and incorrectly understood) flaws in Joseph's character do not, in most cases demonstrated and discussed in detail, have any real bearing in the determination of Joseph's prophetic calling. There has been no smoking gun of Joseph's character that has proved that he wasn't a prophet.

The primary and foundational understanding of Joseph's prophetic calling comes through spiritual witness. Not from the philosophical debates of fallible men concerning whether there were technical flaws in Joseph's character.

Instead, I began to distrust the church's presentation and wondered what else was being omitted.

Tell you what. Please find for me an organization or individual that has been absolutely up front and complete in documenting it's / his / her history and actions. After you do that, then perhaps we can discuss the actions of the Church against the very unrealistic "tell all" standard you are inferring.

[RDL]

Here's what you said earlier in the thread:

And here's the revisionist claim you make.

You did indeed claim that the Church was guilty of fraud because it didn't tell you absolutely everything.

What's next - are you going to claim you never said it's too bad that the first amendment protects the practice of religion?

Absolutely twisted and absurd.

And so now the Church is fraudulent not only because it didn't teach the entirety and history of its doctrine to you, but the things it did teach, it didn't wave under your nose and make you, individually, aware of what was being published in its official monthly magazine.

This gets more and more absurd by the post.

Then why did you bring it up - especially since you're only presenting one limited side of the argument, and ignoring the very compelling evidence to the contrary?

I've quoted the absolutely absurd allegations and statements you're making, and you continue to ignore responses, claim no one answers your questions, and then modify your stances, claiming you never made the initial absurd allegations.

What is apparent is that you left the Church and based your departure on false information from anti-Mormons that you have believed. You've bought into their methodology and characterization of the Church hook, line, and sinker, and when those of us with clearer perspective point out the flaws in your house of cards, you have no cogent response.

As for "I wouldn't point it out", you did it anyway. What was your purpose? Especially since what you said has been clear and responded to in detail - though you continue to ignore those responses.

And here you go again. Do you think that we don't go back and review what you have said on this thread? You whined about the fact that your family and others hadn't "taught" you properly. You did so in the context of claiming fraud. And you bemoaned the fact that the first amendment protects the expression of religion. What kinds of twisting are you trying to do now?

And so here again, after claiming that you never called it fraud, that you didn't talk about individual first amendment rights, you continue to make the same absurd, unrealistic claims that the Church should have to disclose absolutely everything that anyone considers material or it is committing fraud. And you continue to whine about the fact that the law protects the expression of belief.

And you, of course, are going to continue to ignore answers that have been given.

In fact, clear responses have been given to the "points" you continue to make - over and over again - on this thread. You simply continue to ignore evidence that is contrary to your perspective.

What's clear, RDL, is that you're not going to find justification for leaving the Church here. What's equally clear is that the justifications and rationalizations you set up for your departure are so unrealistic and flimsy as to leave any reasonable person gaping in disbelief.

I suggest you go find solace in some of Ed Decker's writings. It would appear that Ed has the "reality" that you crave in order to justify your bad decision to discard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Suffice it to say, I suspect if I led you by the hand through my posts, you still wouldn't get it. I think every religion, not just the LDS faith, should be obliged to expose its dirty little secrets to members and investigators from the outset. In that post, I acknowledged it's probably unrealistic, and suggested maybe I my opinion is tainted by my wish that I had had full knowledge before I went on a mission.

And, as I wrote later, I think that in regard to the Book of Abraham, I could prove the church guilty of fraud for failing to inform me that the papyrus was found.

I don't know why you can't digest those two thoughts without mixing them up.

And I don't know why you can't understand that I could care less about the expression of religious faith by Mormons or anybody else. I've said my issue is with the first amendment giving religions the absolute right to sell snake oil if they choose, the right to conceal facts that aren't "useful" in the interest of keeping their members dutifully toeing the line.

As to the rest of your post, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you and others have assumed that I left the church over disinformation, anti arguments, etc... Ultimately, that was a minor consideration. I left the church in the very early 90's, before I knew the majority of what I know now about early history and doctrine, and certainly before I knew the more salacious aspects of it.

And maybe that's part of the problem, why there is such a disonnect between me and most others here. I didn't have much at all to do with the church from about 1991 until a few years ago, when I began perusing message boards. I was so far distant from the church that I considered specific LDS claims in an entirely different light, without an implicit desire for those claims to be true. Where 12 years earlier I thought certain claims probably were true, as I look back now I cannot imagine why in the world I ever bought it. I have stated (in different words) that I believe the Book of Abraham is a hoax. I haven't backed it up not only because that's beside the point in this thread, but it's so painfully obvious to anybody who views the evidence objectively. I was criticized for asserting that the vast majority of--if not all--unbiased, objective, non-Holy Ghost sensing people who reviewed the evidence for and against would think the Book of Abraham a hoax. But I cannot see how apologists who are honest with the evidence wouldn't agree. Of course, that doesn't mean it is a hoax, only that it the evidence against it far outweighs the evidence for it. After all, if the actual evidence spoke in favor of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Abraham by divine means, faith wouldn't really be necessary, would it?

[Paul Ray]

The issue of Joseph Smith's polyandry. It is not mentioned. It is not mentioned in any canon, in any gospel manual, in any magazine. Yet Joseph practiced it. And the church knows that Joseph practiced it.

Why does that issue matter? Because it goes directly to Joseph Smith's character. At least it did to me, and knowledge of his "theology" and practice of all of his plural marriages would have been hugely useful truths in determining the authenticity of Joseph when I was learning about church history.

Whether Joseph had one wife or many wives is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was a true prophet of God. There have been prophets in the past who had more than one wife, and they were still prophets of God.

I think you're trying to imploy the tactic of diversion.

Just ask God whether or not Joseph Smith was one of his prophets.

... and carry God's answer to your grave regardless of the opinions of other people.

You're not going to be able to say your actions were our fault when you stand before God for your judgement. You're grown up enough now to make your own decisions.

Instead, I began to distrust the church's presentation and wondered what else was being omitted.

I think you never had an assurance from God to assure you that Joseph was one of his prophets, in the first place. That's what you need to rely on, you know.

If you claim God told you Joseph was a true prophet, and then you later rejected what God told you, your reasons for doing so are your own business.

Personally, I see no good reason to reject what God has told me about one of his true and best prophets, Joseph Smith.

[Teancum]

The Church tells its paid educators that, in the limited classroom time that they have, they should concentrate their teaching on what it deems most important and useful, and you think that's funny?

Should the Church simply hire people as seminary and institute instructors and give them a blank check to teach anything at all that they choose? Would an economics department at any college be satisfied with a faculty member who, in Economics 101, chose to concentrate on his passion for fly-fishing at the expense of his coverage of business cycles and monetary policy?

This has been an interesting thread. Both sides I think have made some very compelling arguments for their positions and some not so good.

It is a tough issue. Let me add a few more thoughts.

Certainly the primary goal of the LDS Church and its leaders is to spread what they believe to be saving truths. As part of this mission they clearly have a goal to foster faith and build testimony. I agree that they cannot be totally neutral in this pursuit. Nor should they be.

On the other hand, it seems a bit silly to me to compare the promulgation of the LDS gospel to selling a Ford or a particular political party line. The LDS Church requires a high level of time, resources and devotion. For a child born into the LDS Church they are going to be indoctrinated from the start in the plain and faith promoting portions of the gospel. Boys will be strongly influenced to serve a mission and devote two years of their lives. That often serves as the platform for a future life of devotion and service.

Investigators are a whole difference ball game.

So the question becomes when should a person who is raised LDS be given at least some information about difficult issues that most certainly could persuade them not to serve a mission or devote their life to the LDS cause? And how about an investigator? What information should they have before they commit to becoming LDS?

It seems that some here a in a way admitting that teaching difficult issues at a too early an age will be a bad thing and will not foster faith. But this seem to be almost an admission that the problematic issues are really problematic and will destroy faith. If that is the case then it seems to speak poorly for the LDS Church trugh claims.

And whose job is it to provide this information? I can readily agree that that the more difficult issues are not suppressed and especially given the internet almost anyone can go find out more details than the LDS Church had given. So how and when do these things get examined? And is it reasonable to assume that most 15-19 year olds are going to pursue these issues on their own before they make major life decisions? And is it really their fault if all they get from the Church is faith promoting information and they do not f go read Fawn Brodie, Mormon Enigma, Todd Compton or various BYU studies on whatever issue you want to suggest before they turn 20? This seems almost nonsensical to say yes to.

For my part I have no easy answers. I like the idea of a level C and maybe thing later in High School seminary or an institute class such curriculum could be offered. I think healthy approaches like Bushman's book or other like minded histories could be used and faith and testimony could still be fostered. I could be wrong but I think over time more will become disaffected and angry if some sort of solution like this is not found.

It seems the Church is struggling with this even now. We read this from Elder Oaks from the recent PBS documentary:

"Itâ??s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. Thatâ??s an old problem in Mormonism â?? a feeling of members that they shouldnâ??t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they shouldâ??ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

There are several different elements of that. One element is that weâ??re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesnâ??t deal with anything thatâ??s unfavorable, and weâ??re coming into a period of â??warts and allâ? kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You donâ??t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didnâ??t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and thatâ??s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members havenâ??t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives â??Brother Jonesâ? his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. Itâ??s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that weâ??re moving with the times, weâ??re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldnâ??t."

I like this. I like what he says. I am happy he acknowledges that this is an issue.

[staccato]

Ok, so I read one more post - sue me ---- I seem to remember a Ensign article a few years back that devoted many pages to Joseph Smith and his plural marriages, on top of the fact that the Revelation was given to him and the institute manual and teh D&C manual both mention it. along with a listing of all the women sealed to him being on the LDS owned FamilySearch.org website -- yep, that sure is hidden.

CFR on the Ensign article that mentions polyandry.

jwhitlock does not speak for me. I do not blame the church. I do not trust the church. There is a difference. There is clearly an agenda, and if that agenda means tossing little details that may be less than faith demoting, then so be it. I understand this. That is why I do not trust the church. I like a balanced viewpoint, the good, the bad and the ugly. That way I can determine which points are most applicable to me. Most diligent spiritual students will spend their entire lifetime gathering facts as they learn and grow.

We could probably spend another 14 pages disagreeing over which facts are pertinent and which facts aren't and probably never come to a consensus. I mention the polyandry solely for the fact it is so systematically suppressed and it was critical to me in assessing the character of Joseph Smith.

There are some, like Scott has mentioned, who will have some type of spiritual confirmation and then basically all of the pesky facts become irrelevent. That is not me, however and I am fairly certain I am not the only one on this boat who is more neural than emotional.

[Tchild2]

There is no lack of proofs - only lazy people unwilling to look for them when they encounter something that troubles them.

And yes I said LAZY there is no other word for it. If you don't know something, what is it you do? Hint: every elementary school teacher says the phrase at least daily and that phrase is: "Look it up"

MNN - by your very words and criteria, I then will apply to you the same standards of laziness. What "troubles" you about the Jehova's Witnesses that you have encountered that you lazily ignore their truth claims?

What are the lack of proofs for the JW, the scientologists, the Catholics? Please elaborate.

[staccato]

Whether Joseph had one wife or many wives is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was a true prophet of God. There have been prophets in the past who had more than one wife, and they were still prophets of God.

It is not irrelevant to me, do you get that? I saw how Joseph was able to lie so convincingly to his wife, to his friends, to everyone. Honesty is a trait I value greatly. I wondered just what else Joseph was lying about that he had such an ease in not telling the truth.

I think you're trying to imploy the tactic of diversion.

Just ask God whether or not Joseph Smith was one of his prophets.

... and carry God's answer to your grave regardless of the opinions of other people.

You're not going to be able to say your actions were our fault when you stand before God for your judgement. You're grown up enough now to make your own decisions.

I think you never had an assurance from God to assure you that Joseph was one of his prophets, in the first place. That's what you need to rely on, you know.

I spent 35 years in the church, praying at least five times daily and still did not receive a confirmation that Joseph was a prophet. I have no problem encountering a God in the afterlife and justifying my train of thought as I am an honest person who has honestly spent a life seeking for truth. If there is a God, and he gave me a brain, he certainly not would ask me to abandon that brain for willy-nilly emotional sake. I was raised in a church that taught me that the glory of God was intelligence. Not woowoo feelings.

Personally, I see no good reason to reject what God has told me about one of his true and best prophets, Joseph Smith.

And I don't believe anyone is asking you to. If you tell me God told you Joseph was a prophet, then that is an issue between you and God and your integrity is intact.

[selek]

CFR on the Ensign article that mentions polyandry.

jwhitlock does not speak for me. I do not blame the church. I do not trust the church. There is a difference. There is clearly an agenda, and if that agenda means tossing little details that may be less than faith demoting, then so be it. I understand this. That is why I do not trust the church. I like a balanced viewpoint, the good, the bad and the ugly.

And you will be the first to assert that your own agenda in no way colors this, I'm sure.

That way I can determine which points are most applicable to me. Most diligent spiritual students will spend their entire lifetime gathering facts as they learn and grow.

The key word in the second sentence is diligent. Nonetheless, you are still insisting that the Church do the legwork for you. You are still insisting that the Church teach you all the wisdom of the world while standing on one foot- and save you the trouble of actually cracking a book, risking a paper cut, or god forbid, chip a nail in the pursuit of truth.

We could probably spend another 14 pages disagreeing over which facts are pertinent and which facts aren't and probably never come to a consensus. I mention the polyandry solely for the fact it is so systematically suppressed and it was critical to me in assessing the character of Joseph Smith.

This is the second time you've asserted this lie, stac- either demonstrate or retract the claim that Joseph's polyandry is "systematically suppressed".

Your word is not good enough, and accusation is not synonymous with guilt.

Prove it, or retract it- or be outed as a fraud, a charlatan, and a bomb-thrower.

There are some, like Scott has mentioned, who will have some type of spiritual confirmation and then basically all of the pesky facts become irrelevent. That is not me, however and I am fairly certain I am not the only one on this boat who is more neural than emotional.

I love the smell of unwarranted, smug, superiority. The smell of roasting foolish critics is almost as enjoyable as the smell of roasting coffee beans I once enjoyed.

There are a great many who have researched and maintained their faith dispassionately- and yet remain faithful. Your unwarranted assumption of superiority is misplaced, arrogant, and frankly, smarmy.

Either add some substance or bow out of the thread.

Go play, dear- the grown-ups are talking.

[staccato]

Your search for polyandry has returned 0 results in All Church Content. (Search function on LDS.org)

That's the response to your CFR. As to the rest of your nonsensical comments, you've earned a nice place on my ignore list. Have fun there, you're in good company.

[Paul Ray]

It is not irrelevant to me, do you get that? I saw how Joseph was able to lie so convincingly to his wife, to his friends, to everyone. Honesty is a trait I value greatly. I wondered just what else Joseph was lying about that he had such an ease in not telling the truth.

Whether or not he lied is also irrelevant. My faith is not in Joseph Smith. My faith is in what God has told me about what Joseph Smith had to say.

Do you see the difference?

Who do you trust, if not God?

I spent 35 years in the church, praying at least five times daily and still did not receive a confirmation that Joseph was a prophet.

Then at this point you don't know, do you.

At this point, I neither expect you to say that he was a prophet of God, or that he wasn't.

I expect you to admit you don't know.

... and I also expect you to know how to find the true answer.

I have no problem encountering a God in the afterlife and justifying my train of thought as I am an honest person who has honestly spent a life seeking for truth. If there is a God, and he gave me a brain, he certainly not would ask me to abandon that brain for willy-nilly emotional sake. I was raised in a church that taught me that the glory of God was intelligence. Not woowoo feelings.

Then rely on the intelligence of God rather than on your own human brain or the brain of another human.

Duh!

[staccato]

I don't know. I don't have a problem with saying I don't know. I am highly agnostic based on my life's experiences of not receiving any type of confirmation (good or bad) from anything I would define as supernatural.

I do know that I don't trust people who habitually lie. That part I do know.

[mnn727]

MNN - by your very words and criteria, I then will apply to you the same standards of laziness. What "troubles" you about the Jehova's Witnesses that you have encountered that you lazily ignore their truth claims?

What are the lack of proofs for the JW, the scientologists, the Catholics? Please elaborate.

I have researched both sides of the claims of the JW's and rejected them - I did not listen to just one side.

I also took classes in the Catholic Church and private discussions with the Priest that preformed my marriage (to a nice [at the time]Catholic girl) I also attended Mass at least 50 or 60 times -- I think I have researched them enough to be able to homestly reject them. As far as Scientologists I have never met one in person , but I do like many of L Ron Hubbards science fiction books.

The problem with your asking me this is that nothing is troubleing me about any of those religions, unlike yourself and the LDS Church - if anything was troulbling me OR even if I were a member of these Churches I would be doing ongoing research into any of them and their claims.

[jerryp48]

Here's an article that doesn't even mention that Zina was sealed to Joseph. It also paints Henry Jacobs in a bad light saying he deserted her.

See here.

I'm not quite sure how to take that.

[selek]

That's the response to your CFR. As to the rest of your nonsensical comments, you've earned a nice place on my ignore list. Have fun there, you're in good company.

So because a single source lacks information on it, it doesn't exist?

What a marvellous Alice-In-Wonderland world you must live in!

And as to the ignore list, reciprocity is a real..................

[LifeOnaPlate]

I blame the cultural forces of the church that make assumptions of "I know the church is true" and has them repeated every sunday of the month by sister Jones and each and every one of here seven children age 3-16. MNN - can a three year old "know" that the church is true? What about a six year old? Is this not a cultural conditioning?

It can be.

Apparently this culturing technique isn't as persuasive as we evil Mormons would like, since I know several people who as children said they knew the Church is true, but have since changed their minds.

As a Primary chorister (or music director--I actually prefer "Maestro") I have had an opportunity to learn something I hadn't known before. I used to cringe or get a little uncomfortable when little kids would recite a testimony (Sometimes I still do). While working with these kids, however, seeing the sincerity in their eyes and hearing them sing about Jesus and about life and choices and the gospel I feel the power behind their words, I feel their faith. Once in a while it scares me, actually. I worry so much. How on earth are these kids going to avoid the pitfalls awaiting them? How will they handle peer pressure, teasing (directed towards themselves, or by them to others) how will they handle sorrow and death? How will they maintain faith that God is good, that he's aware of them and that He lives and loves them? Then I wonder how I have managed to do so this long.

But mostly I've been impressed with the power of their seemingly simple faith. And for some reason that tides me over regarding the other concerns, at least for a little while.

What bothers me is the arrogance of posters here who demand that we have the exact same cultural and religious experience as they did. What irks me is that the church's lack of proofs is somehow our problem.

It isn't, it is the church's problem. If there are any "shortfalls", it is the church's foundational claims that drive people away more than attract them in. God indeed works in mysterious ways eh?

I would be hard pressed to compose a more self-contradictory statement.

[selek]

I do know that I don't trust people who habitually lie. That part I do know.

To quote the imminent Vizzini:

"as you are not trusted by me" and for the same reason.......

If only you'd spent a lifetime building up a resistance to iocaine powder

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ok, MNN tell me, given your great proclivity to "honest research". Is the earth 6,000 years old?

I don't believe so, personally. Nor do I feel constrained to do so by my religion.

Was there death before the fall of Adam

I don't know, personally. Nor do I feel constrained to conclude such by my religion.

and did a global flood exist?

It may have been global as far as those involved were concerned. Either way, I do not feel constrained to make a definitive conclusion by my religion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

3. The mere fact that not all truth is of equal value is no justification for the LDS church to suppress or even consciously ignore aspects of its history that ought in fairness to be considered by anyone who wishes to make an unbiased informed decision about the church or its doctrinal and historical claims.

Based, of course, on your standards of what "aspects of its history" ought to be included, and that there is such a thing as an "unbiased informed decision."

[Tchild2]

I don't believe so, personally. Nor do I feel constrained to do so by my religion.

I don't know, personally. Nor do I feel constrained to conclude such by my religion.

It may have been global as far as those involved were concerned. Either way, I do not feel constrained to make a definitive conclusion by my religion.

Congratulations, you are more enlightened than the prophets who, apparently in vain, taught such concepts as truths. To what do you owe your more knowledge and ability to see the truth over the past prophets?