[Iscool]

That's true, up to a point... but even that good point has one strong limitation: neither the LDS nor the Catholic Church use the false idea of "sola Scriptura"... and so long as sola Scriptura is false, no one need worry about falling afoul of it. No, we're not free to conjure up just ANYTHING; it can't CONTRADICT the Scriptures, for one thing, and it should have reasonable EXTERNAL evidence, in order to entertain the idea in the first place. I, for example, could only reasonably assume that there's a live chicken in my attic if I get at least some *evidence* (of my senses, from reliable testimony, etc.) that there is, in fact, a chicken in the attic. The way you talk here, you sound as if Catholics invented the idea of Mary's Assumption on a pure lark, with no historical or testimonial evidence at all!

That's about ridiculous...There is no historical or testimonial evidence of the assumption of Mary...Some crackpot invents the story hundreds of years after the fact and then it gets repeated by more crackpots and you call this historical and testimonial evidence??? Nonsense...

[paladinan]

There is no historical or testimonial evidence of the assumption of Mary...Some crackpot invents the story hundreds of years after the fact and then it gets repeated by more crackpots and you call this historical and testimonial evidence???

Just to clarify: you're calling St. John Chrysostom a "crackpot"?

That seems suspiciously as if your definition of "crackpot" is "anyone who disagrees with Iscool"...