Hi Cold Steel,
"We even have no issues with the KJV of Isaiah being used in the Book of Mormon, as long as the translations are accurate."
My argument is that you should have issues for a couple important reasons.
Using KJV text of 1611 in this manner does not square with the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced. As explained, the claim is the Book of Mormon is a divine translation of reformed Egyptian (a language not known to exist) into English. Where Isaiah is quoted in 2 Nephi the presentation is this would be Hebrew that would have been translated into reformed Egyptian then from that into English. Or alternatively the writer of Nephi had Hebrew copies of Isaiah. But in no case, could he have the KJV text, since it would not be produced until centuries later in 1611.
Saying "we have no issues" is a glib dismissal, that does not show respect for the effort to produce the KJV. Much of our written and spoken English has been influenced by word choices in the KJV.
"For example, people get upset when they see the word “Christ” being used in the translation of a Hebrew document produced several hundred years B.C. Mormons understand that “Messiah” would have worked equally as well, but “Christ” means the same thing in English."
I can't speak for others, but "upset" is not the word I would use. The only point here "Christ" is a Greek word and therefore would be an obvious anachronism if presented as supposedly part of a Hebrew text. In the Bible you won't find "Christ" in the OT, since the language of the OT does not allow for it.
When would you say, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, 607 BCE or 587 BCE? If you looked it up on Wikipedia you would get the correct answer: 587 BCE. Yet, don't think for a second that a determined stick-to-their-guns Witness couldn't argue for 607 BCE. There is a thread here between Jeffro and AnnOmaly (sp?) and Scholar where Scholar argues post after post for 607 BCE, citing all sorts of supposed evidence.
What seems to happen in both faiths, is we subconciously use different standards for evaluating claims. When you look at the Witness claim of 607 BCE, as an outsider who is not committed to JW dogma, it is easy to dismiss. However, for the Witness to dismiss that would dismantle the entire foundation of their faith that points to 1914. Thus, even the most outlandish approach in the work of an appologist supporting 607 BCE is accepted and the considerable evidence for 587 BCE get a glib dismissal. And let's face it saying "God did it" allows for anything -- maybe God just liked how the KJV sounded.
Or imagine this, at college a student is doing religious studies. He is given an assignment to write some poetic phrases praising God who gives comfort. The student turns in the exact word-for-word copy of Isaiah 12 from the KJV. In that setting you would no doubt have no problem calling the student out for plagiarism. Yet in the context of the Book of Mormon a believer is expected not to be concerned.
Or look at the example you gave above about the wheel. A commitment to LDS dogma overshadows what should be an interesting idea. That is, why, did small wheels wind up on a few toys, but never anything larger? This is facinating stuff! From what I read, the wheel is only part of the problem. It was solving the issue of the axel that lead to this incredible breakthrough technology. Yet LDS dogma would have us believe an advanced society achieved (or imported) this technology in the Americas, but in 1492 when Columbus arrives it is nowhere to be found.
Cheers,
-Randy