Nothing could be farther from that! We read +Paul's Epistles during every Divine Liturgy. Our theology and understanding of +Paul, the NT and the OT is, however, based on the Gospels. The Protestants base their theology mostly on +Paul.
As far as the LDS are concerned, as far as I know they have more than one "holy scripture", and they together do not portray a Christ that you or I would recognize. From a Mormon website...Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church...
FK, thanks for the review of LFS/JW differences. Nevertheless, they also use the rest of the Scriptures we use, their (private) interpretation notwithstanding. Did not the Protestants introduce a different (Hebrew) OT from the one the Apostles and the Church chose (Septuagint)? Did not the Protestants introduce private interpretation of the Scriptures?
These are the common elements of relativism that all non-Apostolic "churches," sects and cults share in common.
We Reformers don't base our theology mostly on Paul, we base it on the totality of scripture. Paul just happened to write a lot of it. :) The problem I see with your theology is that when there appears to be a conflict, the favored verse (Gospels) is declared correct [in the way it is interpreted], and the disfavored verse (Paul, or almost anything in the OT) is declared wrong. OTOH, the Spirit shows us a way that both verses are completely true. We don't have favored and disfavored verses in terms of truth. While Gospel verses may be more important to our salvation, they are no more true than the statistics in Numbers.
Did not the Protestants introduce a different (Hebrew) OT from the one the Apostles and the Church chose (Septuagint)?
To my knowledge, the Protestants didn't "introduce" anything. Apparently, the Apostles quoted from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. The question is over which version, that we have, is more reliable. Obviously, the original was in Hebrew. It's a fair debate. But you can't tell me that the Apostles "CHOSE" the Septuagint in terms of throwing the Masoretic text aside in its favor. That would make no sense. At that time, presumably there were still reasonable copies of the Hebrew text around. Why would the Apostles toss the originals in favor of a Greek translation as a matter of authority? They wouldn't.
Did not the Protestants introduce private interpretation of the Scriptures?
No, of course not. Reformers do not use private interpretation any more than you do today. Think of it, do Reformers or the Orthodox have more settled and agreed upon scriptural principles that "all" agree upon? I would say the Reformers do.
And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it. Many of your most beloved Fathers were cast aside on issues on which they were accused of private interpretation.