Responses to a friend's issues with the Book of Mormon

This was written for a friend who read the Book of Mormon and sent all the questions he had to me.
First let me start out by saying that
-I am nowhere near an expert in Biblical history.
-I have zero authority, this is all my own thoughts.
-If you pose any of these questions to an LDS person, chances are they will answer with a blank stare. They are very detailed questions requiring a lot of knowledge about the Bible and Old Testament history, prophesies, that the average person (like me) is usually clueless about. I had to do digging and research to answer these.
-You might not like my answers. That's fine. Go ask them to someone else who is smarter than me. ;)

In 1 Nephi 5:4 it mentions that if Lehi tarried in Jerusalem he would have died. How does that work with Ezekiel 9 where if the righteous received a mark on their foreheads they would be preserved?
My initial thought is that in 1 Nephi 2:1 Lehi is told to leave because the people seek his life. His death could have been the result of the people who tried to kill him, not the destruction of the city.
As far as Ezekiel 9 is concerned, this is a vision, not necessarily an account of what actually happened. While the man clothed in linen was charged with marking those who groaned over the abominations to be spared from destruction, it never says anyone actually received that mark, only the guy coming back and saying that he did it (ie he marked anyone to be spared - if there was anyone to be spared).
So here is where my lack of historical knowledge comes into play. I know there were two destructions or sieges of Jerusalem, one in 597 BC and one in 587 BC. Lehi was likely be talking about the first, since it was in the "first year of the reign of Zedekiah", which is right before the destruction of 597, and he was asked to leave immediately. Ezekiel 9 is likely about the second, since he talks about being carried away into Babylon the during the first seige in chapter 1. So, essentially, Ezekiel 9 most likely can't be applied to Lehi because Lehi and company had already left 10 years prior, shortly before Ezekiel was carried away captive into Babylon.  From what I understand at the end of the second seige, the elite were taken to Babylon, the very poor (of which Lehi was not, given the large inheritance mentioned in the account of getting the plates from Laban) stayed to tend the fields, and everyone else was killed.  Those "marked in the forehead" in Ezekiel 9 to be saved from the destruction are more likely to be the people of Zarahemla discovered by Mosiah in Omni 1:14-16

Followup: Doesn't 2 Nephi 1:4 say that death would have been caused not by persecution but Jerusalem being destroyed by the Babylonians?
It can be implied, but not necessarily. The verse says Jerusalem is destroyed (this is written following both the first and second sieges), and if we stayed we would be dead. This could be that they would have been killed in the destruction of Jerusalem, but it could also be that they were killed in some other way. The point is that they have been spared, not what exactly they were spared from.


1 Nephi 11:28 mentions Jesus came in great glory but in the Bible Jesus did not receive glory until after he resurrected and ascended to sit at the right hand.

Jesus did not have glory until after he was resurrected? I agree that he was not "glorified", but there are two definitions at work here. He went forth in power and glory - the New Testament also has verses saying that Jesus operated under the glory and for the glory of the Father during his mortal ministry. The glory of the Father was made evident in Jesus.  2 Cor 4:6 says the glory of God was shown in the face of Jesus. Hebrews 1:2-3 says Jesus came in the brightness of God's glory. John 1:14 says that they beheld his glory.  John 17:5 says Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was.
So, one thought is that Jesus did go forth in power and glory - but it was in the power and glory of the Father, not of himself.
Another thought is that Jesus was "glorified" at the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:28-33) and since he did still minister to the people after that time, he went forth in glory that way as well.

1 Nephi 13:3-6; 34 says the Mother of Harlots is Gentile but in 1 Peter 5:13, Rev 17, and Rev 18 the Mother of Harlots is Jewish.

My opinion here after reading the verses is that it is not the ancestry (Jewish or Gentile) of the "Mother of Harlots" that is important. Revelation doesn't expressly say she is Jewish, but that she is among the Jews and representative of "Babylon the Great, mother of prostitutes and earth's abominations" (ie, the world and worldly lusts) Nephi doesn't expressly say that she is Gentile, but that the Mother of Harlots is an "abominable church" that has a hold on the Gentiles. In each case the person giving the prophesy is essentially saying that the Mother of Harlots is part of the "other guys".  Remember too, that Nephi is writing this before the Gentiles were accepted into the House of Israel, and John is writing after the Gentiles are accepted into the House of Israel and the Jews have rejected Jesus.  So, what I take from this is that the Mother of Harlots, whatever or whomever it may be, is not a part of and is in opposition to God's people and has great influence over the world.