Any test we use to test truth is only valid when that test does not reject Christ.
What if there were two men... one of the men never claimed that he was a prophet, never claimed that he had received a message from the Lord to deliver to the people, and never claimed that the words he delivered were from God. What if people assumed he were a prophet because of his administrative position in an organization and assumed that what he spoke was God's will for them and was God's message to them? Would he be responsible for people assuming things about him and his message that he never claimed himself? Would the people who assumed those things be justified in doing so?
What if the second man did claim that he had spoken with God and what if he did claim that God had given him a message to deliver to the people? What if the message was consistent with the scriptures and brought light and truth? But what if that man did not hold an administrative position in the organization? Would the people be justified to ignore the message because the second man did not have the required credentials they expected him to have? Would God be wrong to allow something like this to happen or to work in this way?
What if the first man in this hypothetical example were Caiphas, the High Priest of the Jewish people during the time of Christ? What if the second man were John the Bapist? Looking back at these men through the lens of what has been passed down through history and the scriptures, do we find it upsetting to think that John was a prophet and Caiphas was not? How about the Jewish people in that day? What would they think of John's claims when they believed Caiphas to be the high priest? What if the Jewish people had been taught that God would only deliver his words through the high priest?
Do we find it upsetting or incorrect to believe that God used John to deliver his message rather than Caiphas? What if God did that in order to test the people?
What if God chose to do this same type of thing again in our day? Is He (God) allowed to work like this in our day? or would He be constrained by the teachings of modern day leaders that have taught us that if God is going to send a message, it will only come through the leader at the top of the administrative hierarchy of an organization?
We have seen that people were offended by Christ Teachings. The Jewish leaders asked him where his authority came from. Why wasn't Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, made the high priest of the religious organization of the day? Why did he instead choose to avoid all earthly priestly authority and serve the weakest and mingle with the poor and diseased?
In the story of David who was exalted upon an earthly throne, he lost his exaltation and fell. (d&c 132) perhaps the Lord learned from the mistakes of this man who went before him and learned from sad experience that almost all men use their priestly authority to control others. Perhaps this is why he instead served instead of reigning. The Jewish leaders expected the Messiah to be a great king. But what manner of men was He? A man of Galilee? Is He not the example?