Mormon history in English schools

The recent MHA conference included a discussion of how Mormon history is treated in English schools. It came as a surprise to me that Mormonism gets anything more than a cursory look-in. Interestingly, the topic is covered under the purview of history and not religious studies. Many 16-year olds in England who take history as an examination subject study the "American West." As well as the usual cowboys-and-Indians stuff there are sections on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Here is one question that is often asked on the exam: Did the leadership of Joseph Smith help or harm the Mormons more? Here's a sample answer: Evidence to suggest Smith’s leadership was beneficial to the Mormons includes his determination, energy and skill at public speaking and organisation that allowed him to create a mass movement of 35 000 in a matter of just 10 years. Under Smith’s leadership, the Mormons moved from place to place until they built not just a town at Nauvoo, but a community with its own rules and a distinctive way of life that was a model for the movement’s permanent home in Salt Lake City. Most importantly, though, without Smith’s religious writings and preaching, there would have been no Mormon Church at all! Evidence to suggest that Smith’s leadership caused damage comes from after he had successfully established the Mormon Church (although throughout his career, many non-Mormons suspected him of being little more than a fraudster who exploited the religious beliefs of others to obtain wealth and power). In particular, his decisions actively to encourage polygamy (1844) and to run for President (1845) outraged non-Mormons. At the same time, Smith also became intolerant of other Mormons who criticised his leadership. For example, he shut down a newspaper that disagreed with polygamy and claimed he was a false prophet. This intolerance caused some to accuse him of becoming a dictator and led others to believe he was indeed just a fraudster. As a result, he was arrested and imprisoned. Not only did Smith suffer for his actions (in June 1845, while in prison, he was killed by a mob of non-Mormons), so did his followers. Mobs attacked other Mormon families and the decision was taken to abandon Nauvoo, even though it had a defence force of 4000 well-armed men (the Nauvoo Legion). Most historians would probably argue that Smith’s leadership was crucial to establishing Mormonism and turning it into a mass movement capable of surviving in a society that was initially very hostile. However, they would probably go on to argue that towards the end of his life Smith began to make mistakes that proved fatal to himself and damaging to his fellow Mormons. Fair (from a secular school-level historical point of view)??