What I see is that you cannot address the subject of a thread without first targeting the author of a post. You are consistently overstepping your stewardship, Plu. Try to rein in your animosity.
Of course, this argument is completely undercut by your repeated statements that you hold a current temple recommend and that, you indeed, attend the temple. To secure a temple recommend you must state your affirmance that the Church is led by God. So, either you are lying today; you are lying about your recommend status; or you are lying to your bishop and stake president. Any alternative does not reflect well upon you. You are in a position different than most of the other malcontents and unhappy people here; they don't claim to have current temple recommends.
And this addresses the current topic how? And this is your business how?
I never lie. Keeping track of lies requires too much energy and I have little excess. As far as I am concerned, the Church of Jesus Christ is led by God. I have no doubt of that. And as far as the LDS church being led by God, I'm sure he'd like to, but the 12 often thwart his best efforts, just as they have in the past (we have documentation of that thwarting, in the history of the priesthood ban). A group of men that will not listen to his promptings cannot lead as he'd like them to. I am entitled to my personal inspiration regarding any counsel or policy put forth by our leaders in Salt Lake City. That I think the leaders are thwarting God's intentions on many issues is a product of my personal revelation. Neither you nor the leaders can interfere in my relationship with God. Pres Benson said the church was under condemnation. Perhaps that should be expanded to include the leaders.
In any event, regarding the editing of official history:
1. The art of historography really did not develop until the late 19th Century, and then wasn't really understood except at the nation's most prestigious universities. Even H.H. Bancroft and William Prescott were guilty of changing the meaning of sources and ignoring critical sources when they didn't really fit the story they were trying to tell.
So you're saying none of the historical record can be trusted? I'm not sure that helps your argument.
2. The Church's archives are required to edify and sanctify the Saints, and not to satisfy the curiousity of academics. Anything the Church publishes is fair game to support that mission, really. The text of the Book of Mormon may be changed. The endowment may be changed. The text of the D&C may be changed. All as the Lord may command.
And how does changing the historical record edify and sanctify the Saints? Surely the church, as the keeper of all truth and God's own authority available on the earth, would be even more circumspect when it comes to the historical record than anyone else?
3. You have repeatedly accused the brethren of being "arrogant" and lacking integrity. Again, your Temple Recommend interview completely undercuts that argument one way or another. You are required to affirm in your interview to the contrary.
I am not required to refrain from calling a spade a spade, simply because I am required to sustain the leaders of my church. I can still sustain them, even though I think they are arrogant (at least some of them) and some of them lack integrity.
Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)
And yet surely the leaders would prefer to have an accurate historical record, not a whitewashed or edited version. Anything less shows a marked lack of personal and institutional integrity.