the lds apologetic "speaking as a man"+"leaders aren't perfect" vs. "divinely inspired leadership" problem

when mormons want to claim that some statement/action was inspired they claim that the prophet, apostle, leader, etc. "was guided by the holy ghost" and use that as a proof that their belief is true.

however when the same prophet, apostle, leader, etc. says something proven to be false they'll say things like:
* "he wasn't speaking as a prophet, etc., he was only speaking as a man; he was only giving his opinion"
* "nobody's perfect"
* "he was simply telling his audience then and there what they needed to hear to benefit them"

user crossroads on exmormon.org brought up a good point:

I do find it quite foolish that members don't seem to worry about financial transparency regarding church funds. This especially since an important teaching spouted by the door to door salesmen is regarding "the great apostacy", where the church after Christ, led by prophets and "righteous" priesthood holders fell into sin and wickedness, eventually losing its divine authority.
Modern members seem not to realize that early apostles of the LDS were excommunicated, or if they do, they do not make the connection that this clearly means the GAs of today can be corrupt.
Why have members now seemed to accept so blindly that their leaders are infallible? It is ridiculous and evidence of a personality cult.

if you come across these apologetic excuses simply ask:
then why do you trust church leaders blindly with the member's tithing money and donations and require no transparency?