>>>Alma 30 we read that religious freedom and practices were allowed and no one was persecuted for their beliefs. Why then was Korihor arrested when all he was doing was exercising that right?
Korihor was taken before the chief judge not for what he believed, but for what he did. Alma 30:7 states that there was no law against a man’s belief. Alma 30:12 states that the law could have no hold upon him, i.e. for his beliefs. Korihor began to teach that there was no Christ. The people were upset with him and took him before the high priest in the land of Jershon and later in the land of Gideon. Again, it was for his actions not for his beliefs. We don’t know the details of their legal system, but apparently there was some reason why the people were able to take Korihor before the high priests. Without knowing more about their legal system, we can’t say why the people were able to do that.
>>>I read In search of Cumorah and Sorenson’s work An Ancient… My questions: The hill Cumorah is supposed to be in Mexico.
The Book of Mormon doesn’t give sufficient information for us to say where the hill Cumorah was. Many believe it was in Mexico, or in Central America, or in South America. Some say there were two Cumorahs, while others say there was one Cumorah. Some people say it was in the Great Lakes region. This is all speculation since the Book of Mormon doesn’t identify any geographical areas.
>>>I know that the hill in New York wasn’t known as “Cumorah” until 1833 and doesn’t fit any of the geographical/physical descriptions in the Book of Mormon. However, why does Smith claim that it is the hill in a subtle manner (D&C > 128:20)?
D&C 128:20 refers to glad tidings from Cumorah, i.e. the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in that verse to imply anything about a geographical location for Cumorah, just a statement about good news coming from the hill from which Joseph Smith took the plates.
>>>Many apologists claim that “Christ” as used in the Book of Mormon simply refers to Jesus. I understand where they are coming from as “Christ” is understood instantly to be Jesus to all Christians. My question is: if Christ was used as a substitute for Jesus and the term messiah was used to describe his role, how come the title page claims that “Jesus is the Christ”? Its a minor issue but I am a little stumped by this.
The word “Christ” comes from the Greek and means the anointed or the Messiah. Thus, the phrase “Jesus the Christ” means Jesus the Messiah. The word Christ in that phrase refers to his mission. The word “Christ” is also used as a name, hence we refer to him as Jesus Christ, meaning Jesus who is called Christ or Jesus who is the Messiah. In other words, the word “Christ” has dual meanings, and we use context to understand what is being said.
>>>How come a form of democracy after a monarchy is described in the Book of Mormon?
If you will, please, point me to the specific chapters that describe the democracy and monarchy so I can read the context of the types of government you’re asking about. [no answer was received from the person]
>>>Don’t Mosiah 15:27 and 15:25 contradict one another?
In Mosiah 15:22-24, Abinadi talks about the First Resurrection in which the righteous will be resurrected. In vs. 25 he states that little children will also have eternal life (read Moroni 8 about children not needing baptism and being cleansed by the Atonement). In vs. 26, Abinadi switches to the unrighteous and states in vs. 27 that salvation does not come to them. I don’t see any contradiction. [no further email was received from the person]
>>>(and how come the title “Nephi” wasn’t given to kings after Nephi’s time despite he saying it would?)
Please point me to Nephi’s statement about his name so I can read the context. [no response received]
>>>How come there is a lack of revelation and translation from LDS prophets (in Mosiah, prophets are supposed to have the power to translated as they are “seers”)
I’ve read references to revelations being received by Presidents of the Church and written copies being kept in the Church offices. I think your question should be, why haven’t more modern revelations been canonized.
My guess about that is that we (the church members) are still struggling to live the commandments and revelations that have been given, and that it is actually a blessing that we haven’t been given more canonized revelations to live.
I do believe that the Church prophet is guided by revelation and makes decisions by revelation. It’s something I accept on faith. Even if he were to present revelations to the church for canonization, I would still have to accept them by prayer and faith, for mortality is a time of faith. Similarly, Christianity as a belief-system is based on faith since we have no scientific proof that Christ was resurrected and performed the Atonement.
>>>Finally, The LDS Church and Joseph Smith taught Prophets are fallible and can make mistakes. So, they can teach an incorrect doctrine. Doesn’t this contradict 2 Nephi 28:15?
I don’t think so. Verse 15 is condemning those who are puffed up in the pride of their heart, who preach false doctrines, who commit whoredoms and pervert the right way of the Lord. I think that is a very different situation than a LDS leader who speaks about something that hasn’t been clearly revealed by the Lord and thus gives his own opinion on the matter.