Hermeneutical Question

[Archaea]

How to interpret scripture is often debated, and a reasonable way of interpreting it is context, understanding of the cultural setting and purpose. This hermeneutic is clear even if its application in specific instances is not.

However, how do we address the gloss of leaders relative to scripture?

What I mean is this, our leaders have often commented upon a scripture or two, adding or subtracting therefrom to provide a potential insight. For example, I can think of President Kimball's interpretation of Peter's denial of Christ, wherein President Kimball opined that Christ gave an imperative to deny him, not a prophetic prediction. Now the sources don't support that interpretation necessarily, but it's a nice insight.

Do members here when they hear such interpretative suggestions take them as "revelations", which may be the majority position, or do you take them as alternative counsel for a theological thematic argument?