sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well, I'm not so convinced that they are presented the same -- they are, after all, presented by different authors for different audiences and that, by definition, presents at least a slightly different picture. Even the canonical gospels present different Jesuses from each other, let alone a book that was produced entirely outside of the gospel tradition.I think that's a better argument because I'm certain the Biblical Jesus and the BoM Jesus are identical. I think the LDS challenge arises when that scriptural Jesus is compared to our common teachings.
But - as you've pointed out - we rely on continuing revelation to fill in the gaps.
However, the point you raise about revelation is exactly the sticking point between us, for it changes the hermeneutic out of which each of us operates.
A Jesus based on continuing revelation (and as compared with a scriptural model) will present much differently that a Jesus based upon the witness of that scripture, as compared with the witness of the Church. Witness and revelation are two different hermeneutical models, and will, again, by definition, produce dissimilar results.
To answer the OP, I think the real reason why we don't accept the BOM as "valid" is because it is not, for us, a valid hermeneutical tool for a church whose understanding is based on witness.