In discussing Mormonism with LDSs, it is not uncommon for non-Mormons to point to various statements made by past LDS leaders in support of some position. For example, in his book “Mormon Doctrine” (particularly the first edition), Apostle Bruce R. McConkie made many statements that he presented as fact and/or the common LDS viewpoint. Because many of these statements are embarrassing to the LDS Church today, most LDSs will simply dismiss them as “not authoritative”, and thus imply that you shouldn’t even bring them up.
Bruce McConkie was an LDS Apostle. If his statements aren’t authoritative (when he thought they were good enough and authoritative enough to be put into print), then what makes the statements of the rank-and-file LDS any better? If McConkie can be wrong about so many things he had in his book, why does the LDS to whom you’re speaking think that he himself is right about the things he’s discussing? This hypothetical LDS is acting like he has more authority than a past Apostle of the LDS Church! It really makes me think of the old saying/joke, “Who’re ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” except that the modern LDS is saying, “Who are you going to believe, me or some past Apostle of the LDS Church?”
TOYBOM: The One Year Book of Mormon 