The Mormon stance is the same as Islam's except they come up with different conclusions...that our Scriptures have been corrupted. And no, the King James is not 'our bible'. Our bible is assembled from hundreds of manuscripts and fragments all attesting to each other in such a way as there could be no corrupting the text by any one group, despite the conspiracy nuts.
Thanks for your response. Having studied both Mormonism and Islam in depth from an academic perspective, I find your assertion on the equivalency of the Mormon and Islam stance to be prima facie absurd.
While I understand why you must take comfort in the thousands (not hundreds) of manuscripts and fragments all confirming your bible, from an academic perspective it is a lot less solid than you have been lead to believe. 99.5% of the manuscripts "supporting" a perfect bible date well after the 4th century and were intentionally created by the church to artificially support the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sanaiticus or Latin Vulgate, all of which are post Catholic filterings of earlier manuscripts meant to consolidate Catholic authority and therefore power. (And to craft a religion acceptable to both pagans and 3rd century Christians thoroughly conditioned to accept any wind of doctrine.)
The earlier the manuscript fragments pre-3rd century, the more heretical and significant the discrepancies become. Even the fragments purporting to be the earliest manuscripts are not exactly extant originals, rather they are copies from originals with the originals being burned at the order of Rome--out of "reverence" being the official excuse. Damned inconvenient for anybody bold enough to question the accuracy of the Catholic approved manuscripts and damned convenient for anybody wanting to use a 99.5% agreement statistic. You can imagine how that plays to the academic skeptic... Virtually every post 3rd century fragment must be treated as tainted evidence and proclamations of 99.5% manuscript agreements as academically useless catechisms endlessly reverberating in the echo chambers of the faithfully blind.
Now let us address the actual Mormon position that so offends you.
Paul warned the Saints at Corinth that they were too easily accepting "another Jesus" than what he was teaching. (2 Corinthians) He later chastises the Galatians for quickly turning to a "different gospel" being preached by those who intentionally wished to "pervert the gospel of Christ." (Galatians 2) Meanwhile Peter, fighting for his very life, was frantically warning his flock of sheep that "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies… and
many will follow their destructive ways… they will exploit you with deceptive words." (2 Peter) Who exactly were these apostles addressing? Some 2000 year distant Mormons... or were Peter and Paul specifically warning those people
at that period in time of a dire, more imminent threat that
they and their close generations needed to heed?
Compare and contrast this with Paul speaking in 2 Timothy specifically concerning the "last days." "In the last days perilous times will come… men will… be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
having a form of godliness but denying its power… from such people turn away." The Mormon's claim that a "great apostasy" occurred sometime after the Apostle's warning and the council of Nicaea circa 3rd century. If, in fact, this apostasy forewarned by the 1st century apostles did occur in that time period, then all of your precious thousand manuscripts are suspect.
To the academic mind, the 99.5% consistency of post 3rd century manuscripts makes it suspect. Combined with the church's frenzied 3rd and 4th century acquisitions of any and all 1st and 2nd century sources they could find and the deliberate burning of the original sources suggests a much more intentional bastardized religion being created--not for the salvation of men, but for political power and profit. Supposing for a moment that the Apostles' warnings and the Mormon's claim are both correct... well that would make YOU the one who has swallowed, accepted and perpetuated "another Jesus" and "another gospel" -- exactly according to Paul's last days prophecy.
Naturally, if no such apostasy occurred, then the whole Mormon position is nothing more than a pile of shiite and the Catholic church is the correct authority on all things Christian; ergo all sects must continue to kiss the holy Roman ring, no matter how tokenized of gesture it has become willing to accept.
Let's look again at Paul's last days prophecy, specifically the phrase "having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof." Paul was declaring that in the last days (some 2000 years distant?) a vast false Christianity would arise based on a man made creed paradoxically proclaiming an all powerful God that used to perform miracles, used to reveal himself to apostles in post-mortem, re-incarnate form, who used to be same yesterday, today and forever -- but in the last days declares that the age of miracles is over, revelations are done and that the same all powerful God can no longer appear in post-mortem, re-incarnate form to anybody.
The self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Smith declared that he was restoring the original 1st century church, one with apostles to whom the all powerful God could once again appear post-mortem, re-incarnate just as he did in the Bible. Your Christianity says your God can't do that. Smith's Christianity declared that the heavens were open and not silent. Your Christianity locked and silenced them long ago declaring an end to all revelation. Smith's Christianity claimed the power of spiritual gifts was restored such as those needed to perform miracles in Jesus' name. Your Christianity long ago declared the age of miracles over, that "once God's message to mankind under the gospel of His Son was complete, the need for spiritual gifts ceased. And, after the last apostle died, so did the ability the apostles had to lay hands on someone and give the ability to perform miracles (e.g., Acts 19:6). Therefore, spiritual gifts ended at that time."
From an impartial, skeptical viewpoint, one vast, accept-all diversities/perversities of Christianity (except Mormon's) is the one that matches Paul's warning of "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." Believing one is "saved by grace alone" with no need to obey the 10 commandments or walk the walk seems like a perfect match for those condemned by Jesus for saying "Lord Lord" and expecting salvation--or as Paul puts it, "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." Yet another tiny, peculiar, ridiculously audacious, post 3rd century heretical Christianity unapologetic-ally declares the veracity and inheritance of the 1st century power. Interestingly enough, it is that one near irrelevant, relatively minuscule religion--more than any other--that receives the scorn, derision, mockery, attacks and persecution of today's "true Christians."
In light of my rational arguments based on logic instead of zealous belief, I find the Mormon's cautious acceptance of YOUR bible to be rather enlightened and generous, albeit just as guilty in interpreting and abusing the bible for their own nuanced needs and creeds as any of your other rubber stamped flavor of Christianity.
Of course, to believe any of your creeds requires a person to be half-crazy, no one more so than the other. (Said with genuine affection, fully realizing the predicament and ex-nilho problems of not believing.)