A lot of those things deal with figures of speech - not doctrines and such. For example, to use this:
"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool."
To allege that Jesus couldn't have gone to any other Israelite tribes after His ascension is really ridiculous. Obviously, Jesus' enemies are not going to be his literal footstool. It's a figure of speech.
Another is the OT prophets talking about being sinful since birth. That is a figure of speech.
"Do children sin?
Yes according to Psa 51:5;
Rom 3:23) but the BOM says no (Moroni 8:8)."
Obviously to sin one must break a commandment. A newborn baby not only doesn't know commandments, but is incapable of breaking them since all they can do is breath, cry, eat, etc.
Probably the only good argument there is that the BOM does not describe how the Nephites ended up with a priesthood. The presentation seems to assume that Nephi had authority to build a temple and ordain priests.
If the Lord gave Aaron the authority over the Aaronic priesthood, why can't he give authority to others? Where do Catholic priests allege their authority comes from? Obviously they aren't "Levites."
To insist things like Melchisedek had no Father based on Heb 7:3, is clearly a matter of interpretation. I understand Heb 7:3 to mean that in his priesthood Melchizedek became like unto the Son of God, being without father, mother, or beginning of days. It is not saying that Melchizedek was miraculously born of a virgin like Jesus, or for that matter appeared upon the earth somehow without parents.
Here is another quibble: "Where was Jesus born?
Bethlehem Mat 2:1, 8,
but Alma 7:10 says Jerusalem."
Actually Alma says "the land of Jerusalem" - a very strange phrase which would be unknown to Joseph Smith. But exiles might use that phrase to refer to their homeland rather than "Judah" since they were not of Judah.
There are several complaints about modern words which show up in the BOM. One must remember that the BOM is a modern translation meant for modern readers. Perhaps these critics forget that basically no English words existed at the time the BOM was written so it is strange for them to complain that words like etcetera are used. Yes, the BOM has a few non-English words that were popular, and are still well known. I'm sure the Lord knows every language of the hundreds on the earth.
When Jesus died, the sky was darkened for 3
hours or 3 days?
Luke 23:44 says 3 hours, but
Helaman 14:17-27 says 3 days.
What do you know, a different land, and a different miraculous sign. How could that possibly be? Perhaps the thick mist spoken of?
I can go on, but maybe you get the point? None of these things are proofs that the BOM conflicts with the Bible. They are nitpicks by people who do not want to believe it.
