The authors of the Book of Mormon had no problem identifying Jesus by name hundreds of years before he was born, "speaking of things to come as though they had already come." Too bad Isaiah and Jeremiah couldn't have also spoken as plainly of things to come as though they had already come, and saved the world a lot of trouble.
So why didn't Jesus also drop the name of Mormonism casually into his sermons, and when his listeners responded with quizzical looks, just explain that he was speaking of things to come as though they had already come?
Wait, I know. If Jesus had mentioned Mormonism by name that would take away our agency. Isaiah and Jeremiah were probably similarly constrained from mentioning Jesus by name.
But then, why were the Nephites allowed to mention Jesus by name?
Sophocles wrote:The authors of the Book of Mormon had no problem identifying Jesus by name hundreds of years before he was born, "speaking of things to come as though they had already come." Too bad Isaiah and Jeremiah couldn't have also spoken as plainly of things to come as though they had already come, and saved the world a lot of trouble.
I always find the mention of Jesus in the early Book of Mormon funny. Of course, if you accept the loose translation argument, it could be that the Nephite prophets prophesied of the coming messiah, in the same way the Old Testament does, but Joseph Smith realized they were talking about Jesus, so he just used his name during the translation.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775