I am about as far away from a creedal Christian as one can get. But Christianity is founded on one Man, the Son of God. We exalt Him, love Him, and revere him because He gave His life for us and continues to work in our lives granting us all that is essential to our gaining of eternal life. So when we have someone, eg Joseph Smith, chime along and make some fairly audacious claims re golden plates, Egyptian hieroglyphics, a book of Abraham etc, one must be excused for accepting such claims with a pinch of salt, and wondering how, without any real evidence, any church could be considered relevant when built on such a shaky foundation. His own declarations, and those of his compatriots, regardless of their popularity in the pews today, or lack thereof, must be brought into question considering he is designated a prophet, and the church he founded now comprising several million members. If he was a false prophet, them he does need to be exposed... If his understanding of the gospel was wrong, and the church he founded continuing in that error, then it is incumbent upon others to expose that error don't you thimk? Such discussions certainly should never be undertaken in a spirit of one upmanship or rancour. My concern for Mormons is that today's members do not really know or understand what the pioneers of their church actually believed and taught because only 'living prophets' are considered relevant. Are today's prophets tomorrow's heretics?