scripture as general conference or general conference as scripture

as latter-day saints, we usually hold teachings from the latter-day prophets and teachings from the scriptures at different levels. the words in the scriptures are usually viewed as authoritative and doctrinally binding truths, but view talks from the latter-day prophets with a lesser status. in stephen robinson's book how wide the divide, robinsons says that the living prophets have a higher authority, but when it comes to doctrine, he asserts that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine.

why should a 'general conference' talk by king benjamin and a letter from the apostle paul be seen as any different than a general conference talk by brigham young and an ensign article by apostle oaks? in the end i think there are two alternatives, we can view all general conference talks as most latter-day saints would normally view scripture(infallible, especially as most lds view the book of mormon). this route will make it that everything every latter-day prophet leader has said is doctrinally binding; or we could accept scripture as we would accept general conference talks (not infallible). this route would mean that the possibility exists that nephi, paul, or moses were wrong in some of the things things they taught.

what do you think?