just me wrote:Well, one GA said "forget what BY said, forget what I said...We now have further light and knowledge."
That excuse doesn't hold water. If elohim/jehovah did not give the directive to withhold the priesthood from black men until 1978, why did those prophets hold it from them for 140 years? Either that discrimination emanated from elohim/jehovah--the source of all light and knowledge, per Mormonism--or else it was made up and then perpetuated by Mormon prophets until society's morality had so distanced the morality made up by Mormon prophets that the Church was shamed into changing it in 1978.
So, which is it: (a) elohim/jehovah are the source of that discrimination, or (b) early Mormon prophets added requirements (not being black) for holding the priesthood beyond what elohim/jehovah informed those early Mormon prophets was required to hold the priesthood?
If #(a), then elohim/jehovah are morally deficient compare to us 'children' in the societal advancement of morality. That's obviously problematic for Mormon defenders. It leads to the conclusion that we can do better at becoming better people towards one another without elohim/jehovah than with their 'light and knowledge'. So no need for the Mormon prophets as oracles here for elohim/jehovah.
If #(b), then we know that the Mormon prophets are making stuff up, leading the Church astray. If that's the case, then what else have they made up and did not come from elohim/jehovah. Again, society did better without the Mormon prophets, even if it was society becoming further enlightened from inspiration from elohim/jehovah. This outcome too makes the Mormon prophets not only superfluous for moral development of man, but shows them to have been an impediment.
Any way you slice it, Mormon defenders need to just hope the topic is raised less and less. The best defense for Mormonism on this topic is to keep their pie holes shut.