false logic by lds church "prophet" gordon hinckley - black or white; 100% truth or 100% fraud

this is taken from page 5 of an 80 page letter by Bob McCue to Jeffrey Holland and is a good example of false logic used by even the (now deceased) "prophet" of the lds church:

I note in particular the nature of Pres. Hinckley's "black and white" argument, which is an oft- repeated Mormon leadership theme. This is nothing more than a false dichotomy that performs the function of a debating trick, except he uses it on people who are willing to accept almost anything he says. How can anyone who has experienced the good side of Mormons conclude that Mormonism is 100% fraud? Therefore, if it is either all truth or all fraud, it must be all truth. This is the conclusion toward which Pres. Hinckley directs as many people as possible. ... I cannot think of anything in life that is as simple as Pres. Hinckley represents this particularly complex issue to be, and my review of Mormon history and theology has brought me the almost certain conclusion that there are serious inaccuracies in the story the Church tells, and pervasive pockets of error within the LDS tradition that continue to influence it today. In short, Mormonism is a mixture of good and bad, truth and error. It is grey. But nonetheless, Pres. Hinckley attempts to win the debate by the manner in which he frames it, and due to how he is trusted, he will be effective in this regard with respect to many people, and was effective until recently in my case.

lds church by "apostle" dallin oaks: imbalance and one-sidedness

to me, this represents an implication that the lds church leaders actually know they are deceiving their own members, taken from a letter by bob mccue to jeffrey holland:

As Elder Oaks said at a CES conference at BYU in 1985,

Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of the official Church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides.

In this he echoes Elder Packer's "The Mantle" talk which was the keynote from which my Institute of Religion instructors taught me.

I can't tell you how disappointed it made me feel to read things of this nature coming from those to whom I had entrusted my heart and soul, and to whom I had given all of the time and other resources for which they had asked over a period of more than twenty-five years. I did not know that they expected me to act as judge in this exercise, while they presented one side of the story and the anti-Mormons presented the other. In fact, I believed them when they told me that I should not read anything that was faith threatening. How, in that case, could I possibly have acted as judge? And if I could not act as judge, who was looking after my interest in this matter? The Church led me to believe that it was doing that for me, and now I find out that it never intended to do more than advocate a one-sided position. It still makes me feel ill each time I think of this.

quite the difficult situation: we will tell you one side of the story, but you are not allowed to read information from the "other/opposite side".