That is refreshingly honest at least, rather than trying to support your earthly tradition by Scripture, which reveals it to not be in Scripture. And rather than being missing, again, the specific procedures and rules laid out in scripture require repentant wholehearted faith, and which normatively is by immersion, as the word means baptismo), and as you do not bury one by sprinkling. Nor does Ezekiel 36:24-25 state sprinkling is baptism.
So at least the traditions I follow are from Apostles and the early church fathers. Yours are “inspired” by “latter-day saints” such as Calvin and Luther.
Actually, that fallible source is not your basis for assurance of truth either, since unanimous consent is rare, and evidence for the Assumption is lacking for among early sources.
Thus your basis for assurance of truth is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, as she has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
But the evidence does not warrant her assertion.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
There are no claimants to the bones of Mary, unlike other saints. The first written mention is commonly believed to be in the 3rd to 5th centuries. This does not mean it was not believed by Christians before that time. Just as the Trinitarian doctrine does not jump out at you at first glance, neither does the assumption of Mary. God’s church engaged in the same process of looking at the evidence, oral tradition, theological reflection, etc. to define the Assumption of Mary infallibly. Note that the late declaration of the Assumption (20th century) is a result of heretical beliefs contradicting what was already believed by the Church. Heresy is often the catalyst for Church declarations.