" If Joseph Smith and God decide for us all to wear holy undergarments, I'm not trying to make a joke, they already have."
You weren't trying to make a joke by mocking something others hold sacred here, either, right?
You know, your example of Paul saying "received" is right on. He saiand wrote things after this, why was this able to be received? Because it wasn't changing the gospel that had already been set out, it wasn't changing the Lord's gospel. Then why did he have to say more? Presumably to further teach the Gospel, or to clarify uncertainties. This is exactly what Joseph Smith and other latter-day prophets have done. They aren't changing Christ's gospel, they aren't adding anything.
Please show me what Mormon theology contradicts anything in the Bible. Not merely something that isn't specifically in there - that's what Paul did, too. Show me something contradictory.
Furthermore, people have been kind enough to sddress all of your doctrinal questions (and jokes in poor taste) concerning mormonism, so why not answer a couple of ours? Here are a few:
1. If faith is all that is needed, then please explain James 2, which clearly states that faith without works availeth a man nothing.
2. If baptism is not necessary, how do you explain John 3:5 (Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.)?
3. You say baptism for the dead is some outlandish concept - then why is it that Paul acknowledged and endorsed baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29?
That's just a start. I would appreciate it if CalJones could answer this without resorting to name-calling, damning of others, and jokes in bad taste, but I would also appreciate sincere responses from anyone less offensively outspoken who can explain to me these issues. Part of this is indeed an admittedly un-Christlike retort to Cal's vitriol, but part of it is also a sincere question I would like to have answered.