Teaching social studies is an exercise in deciding what to teach and what to ignore - whether you are talking about religious history in a church class or any other type of history in a school classroom. In the practical reality of actual classrooms, there is no such thing as "the whole truth". If there was, there would be no need for theses and dissertations and college-level courses. Furthermore, everything that is written comes from some limited perspective; each story is told through the lens of the teller. As a teacher, the only legitimate argument is over what specific part of the "whole truth" to present.
For example, Joseph Smith was commanded to repent in order to continue to be able to translate. Why would I speculate about exactly which sins Joseph had to overcome to continue the translation? He lists various weaknesses and sins in the JSH; he is chastised repeatedly in the D&C; why is it of any value to start listing specific sins when the lesson isn't about that - and when the portrayals we have of him do not come close to presenting him as infallible and sinless? Why do some people think it is critical (or even a worthwhile exercise) to take limited time and spend it trying to cram everything possible into that time?
I have a hard time biting my tongue when the Church is accused of teaching "half-truths" and not teaching "the whole truth". That simply can't be done, especially in one-hour lessons taught once a week. Under those circumstances, those who correlate the lessons and those who teach them simply must choose what to include and what to leave out. There is no other way.
I'm not saying I would craft the manuals the exact same way they are published now. I wouldn't. There are any number of things I would do differently. The reality, however, is that my effort would be my subjective effort - not any closer to "the real truth" than what we have now.