more on "truth"

In response to Zarathustra's explanation of "truth," I wrote (with minor edits):

"I still don't think that Mormonism boils down to pragmatism or taste, though.That is ultimately why I stopped going, but it is not why I stopped believing. Perhaps my reasoning for stopping to believe is faulty, but I think there are some of Joseph's claims that can be put to the test of correspondence.For example, the Book of Abraham translation: we have the papyrus that he "translated" from. We have evidence that shows that he used the very papyrus that was recovered, and it doesn't match up to what he wrote.

Or if we can't go that far, then some of his claims can be reasonably argued against with what "data" we have that make his claims overly suspicious. The happenings of the first vision cannot be known, for example, but his several stories of them, matched up to what was going on when he told or wrote them, make them look suspicious. Perhaps this is something like being in a "he said--she said" court trial, where the lawyers "prove" a case through circumstantial evidence and casting doubt on the witness's reputation and credibility.

I'm not pulling this to the extent that would say, "Since Joe committed adultery numerous times, he has no credibility as a translator of ancient texts." But because he thought the Kinderhoek plates were authentic, and correspondence evidence shows he didn't translate the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon in any way that can be reasonably called translation, I doubt his credibility as a translator."

These, among other things, led me to believe that Joseph Smith had no special conduit to God. Now, does that mean everything he ever said (or wrote into scripture) should be thrown out the window? No. Why? Because correspondence truth is not the best conception of truth by which to discuss theology. The church's teachings should be measured on, as I've said before, a different yard stick. Which is why, I suppose, for me, "realizing" the "untruth" of
Mormonism didn't, in itself, make me leave. First it was a matter of "true or not," then a matter of "good or not." And I decided, given many things, (the top three of which are the church's approach to women, homosexuals, and blacks, but the list doesn't end there) the church wasn't good.

Given Zarathustra's argument, I want to revise that last sentence to read "the church wasn't good for me," but I still hesitate. Because it's not good for a lot of people. For example, of the top three gripes I have with the "goodness" of the church, I only fit into one of the categories.
And, I suspect, that there are people in the church who gush about how great it is for them, while it is hurting them at the same time (women who internalize their supposed inherent inferiority, for example).

I'll have to chew on these ideas some more.