Apart from Tradition, the Bible’s meaning falls into a matter of private taste.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the way your religion interprets the Bible is a matter of tradition.
Just take the difference between your views on Mary as Mother of God and the Lutherans and early Reformed Protestants for example.
I’d say you are sort of begging the question when it comes to Mormonism.
Every heretical group since the beginnings of Christianity has claimed the benefit of scripture as being on their side.
“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.”
Augustine,To Januarius,Epistle 54:1(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,1:300
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/ecumen.htm
Whatever you learned in Sunday School and after is Tradition.
Without any evidence there is no tradition which can be held as approved by the Apostles...
You can't just say 'it's so' because someone claimed at some time to have seen an Apostle...Or even if the person made the claim that they were taught by an Apostle...The Apostles taught a lot of folks who twisted what was said, or taught other gospels...
The only actual record we have is the God breathed, preserved scriptures...