Curiousity With A Sprinkling Of Defensiveness

My curiosity was piqued this morning and maybe someone can answer a nagging question for me.

While reading this article about the King James Bible (by the way, this year is its 400th anniversary), 3rd paragraph down, the author is describing some of the reasons why the KJV is not the commonly used bible in America anymore. One reason, he says, is this:

"There have been numerous manuscript discoveries over the past four centuries that are of course not reflected in the KJV."

And I instantly (admittedly defensively) wondered...what is it about the discovery of the Book of Mormon that differs so much from the discoveries of other lost manuscripts that most people won't even consider that it could be scripture? Is it because it wasn't a scientific find from an archaeological dig? Is it because it was discovered in America and not in ancient holy lands? Is it because it was delivered angelically? "...Oh, that was brought about by angels and a prophet, there is no way we can accept that as gospel."

Perhaps that was too aggressive or cynical but I really wonder: What turns a person away from believing that it could have happened?

We have no problems believing that God told Noah to build an ark, or that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, or that Moses parted the Red Sea, yet somehow because those things occurred anciently now we balk at the notion that God could have actually modernly visited a boy in upstate New York and called him to be a prophet and through him, miraculously brought about ancient buried scripture that over and over again testifies of the divinity of Christ.

Maybe I'm too close to the subject matter to ask this question without a bit of defensiveness, but I am curious, nevertheless.