"While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts."
There are indeed interesting ties to the Essenes. I've not read enough about ties with Buddhism. There are a number of interesting theories about religious history and a number of books which forcefully advocate certain theories like an expose', but there is much to debate with them and their framework. It honestly goes to show just how murky the waters of history really are and how easily one can argue for a certain perspective with great force when picking and choosing which information to include or exclude when writing such books. I don't mean to be a downer on the theory that you seem to give some credence, but "[t]he majority of modern scholars who have studied both Buddhism and Christianity hold that there is no historical evidence of any influence by Buddhism on early Christianity." Don't worry, I won't mock you simply because you may accept something that many disagree with, historically speaking.
I will say that I am not offended by your boredom with the Book of Mormon. Truthfully (and isn't this heretical of the Mormon to say?), I prefer reading the New Testament and the Doctrine and Covenants/accompanying church history--not because I believe it to be untrue, but because I find the others more interesting. In all seriousness, have you read the book? Many say they have, when really they've simply sampled from some online source, usually couched in some lovely (read: unflattering and potentially inaccurate) commentary. If so, I'm impressed with your well-rounded reading.
Let me address several things that keep nagging me from previous comments. First, you may make fun of me. You may make fun of the Book of Mormon or Bible. You may make fun of Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson. You may make fun of Mormon culture or Christian culture or Western Civilization. You may not exactly endear yourself to me with such comments, but whatever (speaking of whatever, can I get a taco?). When a person speaks against a God they don't understand, or especially against Christ who was very clear in his message (i.e. "by the blood of his hands he condemns us all to hell."), I will be offended, and I feel such is justifiable. If he is your Buddha, treat him like the exemplar you feel he is, even if you do not believe him to be anyone's Savior.
Another point I wish to make: there are parts of the Bible I do find offensive, especially by today's standards. Why did God command some of these things? I certainly don't know...but I certainly do know that a number of the strict commands of the Old Testament are clearly no longer in place. To me, comparing the Bible as a whole to Mein Kampf would be like comparing the US Constitution to the same autobiography. Sure, some evils were enshrined in the early document, but the document was good then, and has since drastically improved (at least in that area, though I would argue some other areas were a backslide). Like you said earlier, you shouldn't throw out the whole baby with the bathwater.
CP3S mentions things that he finds offensive as well, and then in a preemptive point mentions God's omnipotent power and preventing such vile things to enter into the book. Let me provide a hypothetical scenario. Let's assume God is real for a moment. Let's assume that a modern-day Moses exists and the whole world knew this man was a prophet of God. Let's go on and imagine that God provided commandments that were completely consistent with our way of thinking in the year 2013. Let's then imagine that we wrote down these commandments and preserved them for 2,000 years. Let's then say with great certainty that the people of 2,000 years in the future would look at our society, our people, and our values as a bunch of idiotic baloney. Then they look at our scriptures that match our values, and decide that the God (which we already are assuming exists) must be false simply because he spoke to a more primitive people in a way that they would understand. You don't have to believe the Bible is true, and you may give a number of reasons why you think that way. But if you think God is false because he was working with a primitive people, you're kinda expecting a little much from him. Do you honestly expect that any deity communicating with any people would immediately instruct them in the ways of democratically electing a president, order them all to join a center-left political party, and provide them with the technology to build a rocket to travel to Mars? This might be useful.
Okay, since we're discussing homosexuality, and we still haven't fully opened this can of worms, let me provide an explanation why Warbler and I may not approve of homosexuality without condemning any homosexual to Hell, considering them an evil or inferior person, or intending to offend. I'm sure this will raise a big stink with lots of pitchforks and all, but bear in mind that you all did ask for reasons and not just 'cause God said so:
God is the Creator. He is in charge of how life comes into this world and leaves it. He said, "Thou shalt not kill," and "Multiply and replenish the earth." When someone inappropriately takes these powers into his or her own hands, God is displeased. Ergo murder=sin; fornication=sin; adultery=sin; abortion=sin. Likewise, using the power of procreation in a manner that is clearly impossible for procreation is not part of God's plan. Therefore, homosexuality=sin. Am I equating all these? No. Am I aware of the argument about couples who cannot have children: yes. They are at least engaging in the process God intended, even if it does not work properly. Am I aware that murder or adultery are choices, while homosexuality is not? Yes. I will be honest, if there is one particular topic that I struggle with most, it is the topic of homosexuality. But you asked for a reason. There it is: take it or leave it (or use it to tear into me, as I imagine will be done by Bingo, C3PX, Puggo, and Frink).
Don't think me hateful. I don't approve of CP3S sleeping with various girls, some of whom he had little feelings for. Am I horrible for not approving of his sins either? I don't approve of Frink's advocacy for abortion. Am I judgmental? I don't approve of the fact that a not too distant relative of mine cheated on his/her spouse. Am I a horrible bigot? After all, in a sense each of these people is in fact doing what their nature may incline them to do. But I don't judge them. I don't even approve of my own sins!
Have I investigated other religions? More than you know. Have I read their material? Well, certainly not everything, but I have a number of documents and scriptures from other religions, including Mormon splinter groups (e.g. The Book of the Law of the Lord), other Christian branches (e.g. creeds/confessions, Catholic and Orthodox catechisms, various translations of the Bible), and non-Christian scriptures (Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Kitab al-Aqdas), and that's just for starters. I've at least sampled most of them, though I admit to having not finished many. I have attended many other church services and engaged in conversations with members of other faiths.
This took a while to type, but I have much more to address. I'll try to get to it soon.