Loran in your first post you wrote and a portion I bolded:
"The next track to pursue would be detailed, point for point examination of the examples of deception critics claim demonstrate mendacity on the part of either Joseph or the modern church to see, under the stern light of philosophical and scholarly rigor, if they hold up to inspection. We will here, as TBM's, not attempt to conclusively disprove each and every point (as this is neither possible nor necessary) but only conclusively disprove where such is clearly marked and with historical questions that cannot be unambiguously laid to rest, provide plausible explanations of such a nature that the criticisms are rendered inert; they should be, to a fair minded observer, placed in sufficient doubt that the two sides can agree to disagree without dogmatic assertions on either side but with the critics at least giving the benefit of the doubt to Joseph and the Church when sufficient counter evidence has been put on the table to either logically and/or historically render the example or criticism plausibly mistaken."
I have assumed you are sincere. You have said you will provide "plausible explanations." You did not say in the above that you would simply assert what is to be considered true. Please keep in mind, truth by assertion is NOT providing "plausible explanation." It is NOT providing the "fair minded observer" with good reasoning in order to evaluate whether or not J.Smith lied about his claims. So Loran, how would hiding the plates/evidence be a necessity for "growth and progress toward exaltation"?
Because, marg, as in so many other things, the availability of objective, observable, empirical proof of the claims of the gospel would destroy the necessity of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and all the challenges, difficulties, and intellectual, psycholgical, and spiritual struggle this intails and implies.
It would also end our eternal progression within the context of a "mortal probation", as understood in church teaching, as no further process of growth embedded in a background of potential doubt, and challeges to one's faith which cannot be simply refuted by pointing ostensively or empirically to plates, God, the Ark of The Covenant, or whatever, would be possible.
We know their was a T. Rex because we have his bones. We can know there is a God, with certainty, through direct communicatin with him, or revelation. We don;t see God empirically; he doesn't come to church physically, walk around the streets and teach, or throw lightning bolts at the wicked in plain view of CBS Evening News. But if he did, the Plan of Salvation, as understood in the restored Gospel, would be, for all intents and purposes, negated, and our purpose for being here short circuited. I don't need to have faith in the existence of T. Rex, not only because we have proof of its existence empirically, but more to the point, because the existence of T. Rex has no relevance or importance whatever to the great questions of the human condition, which normally are set out as who am I, why am I here, and where am I going?
In other words: What is the ultimate metaphysical nature of the self, what is the meaning and purpose of existence and the self's embeddedness in it, and what happens to the individual and his/her consciousness after the death of the physical body?
The existence of Dinosaurs, or of Quasars, or of the laws of Newtonian mechanics, or the functioning of the endocrine system, or the mating habits of Trap Door Spiders, are all interesting, and all demonstatable empirically, but have nothing to do with those great questions of the human conditon that the Gospel exists to answer and with respect to which, faith is required both to aquire and maintain.
Loran