“So, the then “living prophet” was wrong, mistaken?”
You are talking about a personal opinion of his, not a revelation.
Parsing seems to be the primary work of Mormonism apologists. In the sinkEmperor years it was called spinning, and only devious people thought it was cool.
Nice cop-out. You know, I'd say a good chunk of God's revelations to prophets in OT times made it into God's Word, even if (& actually ESPECIALLY if) we've lost any books along the way. [IOW, at least the prophets were still faithful in recording those revelations; preservation was perhaps a matter beyond their stewardship]
Now compare that to Doctrine & Covenants. Exactly how many "fresh" post-Smith "prophets'" "revelations" are included in this LDS "Scripture?" [So few that it'd only take a one-second breeze to blow 'em away]
So, of course, the standard apologetic line you've been fed by the professional LDS apologists, "You are talking about a personal opinion of his, not a revelation" would then HAVE to apply to about 100% (rounded off) of what most LDS "prophets" have commmunicated. Why? Well, if these were important "revelations" from God (and frankly, I don't think what God has to say on matters is NOT important, do you?), why hold them back from worldwide present & future worldwide Mormons who might not have access to West-laden General Conference Web sites or subscriptions to Ensign Magazine?
So, tell me, then how DO you test any statement of an LDS "prophet"--given that most LDS "prophets" have NEVER couched what they've said as a "revelation" & of the few that have, only a sliver in 100 forests of what they've communicated would amount to that level of "OFFICIALDOM MORMONDOM?"
This is NOT simply a rhetorical question. It's vital. Because elsewise an LDS "prophet" could make 100 predictions about 2008...but never couch them as a "revelation" or "from the Lord"...and then your nice cop-out would apply to all 100 predictions.