However, D&C 121 contains a rather different doctrine of the priesthood that is much neglected – namely the principle that the authority of the priesthood rests ultimately on persuasion, not some sort of divine command and control economy.

This issue ultimately rests on a fundamental question, namely what is it that legitimizes God’s authority? Is it power? truth? intellect? Or rather persuasion, long suffering, justice, and mercy?

So while as a simple matter of social order we are obligated to sustain our leaders, there is no reason to believe that priesthood authority is not subject to these considerations, and indeed no reason to believe that the behavior of the particularly heavy handed should not be viewed with a degree of well justified contempt, no matter what their rank is.

I don’t think the post is really trying to defend the idea that prophets are infallible per se, inasmuch as give an explanation of the unconditional trust which we are supposed to place in our leaders. The fact is that most member do see the prophet’s word as being infallible, even if they don’t see HIM as being infallible or simply aren’t willing to admit infallibility of any kind. I think Kaimi is simply pointing out that the prophet’s word is final, not infallible; and in this I don’t see much of a difference between his position and yours.

There are plenty of cases where the final word, in retrospect, has been quite fallible.