They pretend to be.

I'm pretty sure they don't. Last I checked, members can't vote on who their leaders are - be they local or general. They can sustain the leaders or oppose. But even if 100% of the congregation opposed a given leader, it wouldn't remove him from his/her position unless the leader above him/her investigates the opposition and finds a legitimate reason the leader should not be there.

The fact that LDS leaders are not responsive to members is why your church has such a terrible history of governorship and that is something you should be really concerned about as a Mormon.

I'm not terribly concerned that demanding policy change of our leaders doesn't instantly equate to policy change. Because if it did, what would be the point of the LDS church? It clearly would not be run by God if men could simply change policy and commandments by demanding the change to leaders (i.e. Ordain Women, etc.). I'm not saying policy can't change, only that the members don't have control over it.

Unfortunately, you are going to keep getting screwed by the LDS Church for the rest of your life and then you are going to feel obligated to come on here to defend your own screwing to us when we point it out.

I don't perceive it that way. I come here because I am astounded at how much bias and how little substance there is to the discussions I see. Every post is like:

"[negative anecdote/meme/joke about the church that is most likely outright false or at least egregious hyperbole]"

"[reply lamenting that TBMs will never understand how enlightened everyone in this sub is]"

"[another reply predicting how great it's going to be when <insert negative thing> happens to the church or its leaders]"

"[another reply reinforcing OP's anecdote/meme/joke with another anecdote/meme/joke]"