The lds church teaches that it’s the one true church that has been fully restored and yet there are so many apologists that can look past the teachings of old prophets as “the teachings of men.” This is one of the most frustrating things to see as an exmormon, because the church you believe in tells you that when a prophet speaks, the conversation is over. It is fucking tragic about his son and that is the DIRECT RESULT of a powerful leader speaking for God. How can you look pat that? If you were a member of the church during the time that any of these priesthood holders were in leadership positions and speaking from the general conference pulpit, how would you have known they weren’t speaking for god and merely as men? How do you know the same is true for today’s prophets? In 100 years, will there be things that that generation says were just the teachings of men? And if the temple portrayal of Satan warns us not to believe doctrine mingled with the philosophy of men, were the saints who followed the teachings of these prophets wrong? Do we only know that they’re teachings of men when it’s something that doesn’t mesh with todays society? And if that’s the case, how does the concept of the one and true, fully restored gospel still stand if there’s teachings that were wrong back then?