Mormons do in fact prefer to obfuscate and not come clean, and charity is simply making excuses while insulting everyone's intelligence. She is acting as an apologist, and a lame one at that, as usual, and she doesn't seem to appreciate what is taking place here.
This woman hit everything on the head perfectly. She is explaining how Mormons are viewed from outsiders and the actions of charity and the apologists are not doing anything but enforcing those negative feelings. It doesn't matter what rationalizations charity can come up with because nothing changes the fact that this is still how non-LDS view the LDS. By telling them they are wrong to feel that way is no reassuring in the least. There are valid reasons why Mormons are treated with skepticism. The culture of transparency is an axiom that cannot be ignored today. And yes, you guys can cry "sacred" instead of "secret" until you are blue in the face, and it doesn't convince anyone except yourselves. Why? Because the only people convinced of this nonsense are other LDS who believe just about anything an apologist can come up with.
Nobody else is buying it.
Ask and you can get a straightforward answer on any question you have.
What planet are you living on? You can't even expect the "prophet" to give a straightforward honest answer on Larry King. She was right. When a camera is in his face he denounces the doctrine yet when he is writing for the Ensign, before and after, he embraces it.
Ask missionaries about polygamy and you'll "straightforwardly" be told nonsensical crap about how the early Mormons were compelled to practice it because most of the Church consisted of women because all the men were being killed. As about blacks in the priesthood and you're likely to be straighforwardly told, "Huh, what do you mean?"
It is a freakin joke how this Church has mutated to what it is today. It mutated the way it did out of apologetic necessity, rejecting all the unpleasantness of its past while maintaining that it was OK for the prophets to have been wrong on so many things they claimed to have received by "revelation." Juliann is on the other forum telling us that Mormonism is only whatever the "living" prophet says. Everything else in the past is trumped. That's great, except the living prophet doesn't receive revelation that means anything. Nothing new anyway. He doesn't make prophecies like prophets do. He doesn't tell us anything new worth knowing unless it is to distance ourselves from the Mormon roots that really made the Church what it is. In fact, the Church hasn't really presented any new truths since Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. Ever since then, the later prophets have been borrowing from them and when socially appropriate, denouncing their revelations as "line upon line" crap. Meaning, they weren't necessarily wrong, but they aren't entirely true either. It is an attempt to have it both ways.