Captain Moroni And The King-Men

[volgadon]

Nephi killing Laban has never especially bothered me. Captain Moroni killing the king-men in Alma 51, on the other hand, strikes me as unjustified and bothers me quite a bit. Maybe after I'm no longer a newbie I can start a thread about that--or maybe such a thread already exists.

On another thread, Rhythm mentioned this, and as I'm intrigued, decided to start a topic for them.

[Freedom]

What is the alternative, put them in a high security prison? Exile them to their country of origin who will then try them and put them in a high security prison? They attempted to take over the government which lead to a devastating war and the loss of thousands of lives. They were given two choices - stop trying to topple the government which will lead to the destruction or our nation or die. They chose death. During war, if the enemy refuses to surrender, you kill them. What other choice do you have?

When we impose the morality of a developed nation that is part of a global community on a collection of bronze age tribal nations whose very existence is always on the verge of collapse we are bound to get into trouble.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

[Buzzard]

Remember, the BOM is an abridgment. I suspect there is an interesting backstory to all this. At some point in the future, we will know all the grisly details, if we really are curious.

[CV75]

On another thread, Rhythm mentioned this, and as I'm intrigued, decided to start a topic for them.

According to Alma 51, Moroni was wroth and filled with anger; these emotions sometimes mask fear and desperation. In this state he sought and obtained the voice of the people and the governor’s approval. There was also some due process in that the enemies of the state were to be tried, since after the battle where so many of the king-men were killed, it appears that all but the remaining leaders were imprisoned to await trial. The petition was effective in that everyone else but the dissenting leaders seemed to fall in line with the nation’s military aims.

About 5 years later (Alma 60:16-17) Moroni remarks that their crimes of inciting treason and bloodshed were worthy of death. Then some time after that (Alma 62:9), it is noted that “those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison; and they were executed according to the law…”

[Tacenda]

Sometimes I think JS may have just been a great storyteller and wrote the BoM. It does say in the first original BoM that he was the author and proprietor, but then later changed to say it was a translation. And that JS tried to sale the copyright of the BoM, makes it sound like it was a novel. I've read the apologists remarks on both items but still trying to get full belief back is difficult, but can be done I'm sure. ETA: Cal, I ran out of posts long ago, I think the Mods are so sick of me, that I've gotten less posts than before, I could be wrong. In answer to your posts below, I guess I have discussed this, and as I noted in this post I have read the apologists remarks about it, but thanks for the reminder. Today, I've been feeling like I'm losing it. Hopefully I won't bring this matter up in the near future again. I'm struggling to the point of no return. Maybe the Mods should ban me for good.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[cdowis]

Very simple ==>> Death for treason during a time of war. They could have brought down the entire nation.

[cdowis]

Sometimes I think JS may have just been a great storyteller and wrote the BoM. It does say in the first original BoM that he was the author and proprietor, but then later changed to say it was a translation.

This is an oldie.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Joseph_as_author_and_proprietor

[Calm]

It does say in the first original BoM that he was the author and proprietor

Please stop repeating this as if it means anything. It was simply that the law required it to be stated that way. I believe the FairMormon link states that Joseph stated it was translated even with the "author and proprietor" required notation so he was consistent from the beginning in his claim of translating the book, not creating it by his own imagination or whatever. I know you mentioned you have a problem at times with retaining information so I am wording this strongly so it helps you remember.

Here you talk about this issue before:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209181248

Here is the answer to that argument given you:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209181317

Here is your response demonstrating you didn't accidentally miss reading it:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209181326

I've read the apologists remarks on both items but still trying to get full belief back is difficult, but can be done I'm sure.

Perhaps I misread you and you remembered this point. If so, can you please explain to me why it makes a difference that he used the convenience of "author and proprietor" in order to keep others from stealing the text and publishing it themselves (something that was actually attempted) when Joseph repeated six times in the copyright application itself that he translated the material.

My memory...and I will try and find the information for you if you think it will make a difference, I'd rather not if it is not going to change your mind...is that the selling of the copyright was much the same thing, in order to publish the Book of Mormon in Canada the best way to go about doing it...both because of financial and legal ownership issues because of Canadian laws...was to get a Canadian to back it by selling the copyright for Canada to him/them. IOW, it made the difference between publishing the BoM in Canada and not.

There is this that covers the revelation to do so itself:

http://en.fairmormon..._sell_copyright

Edited August 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

There's nothing wrong with saying that JS was literally the author of the BoM. Whatever the nature of the inspiration, it had to come through his head, his perceptions, his choice of words, in the end....

[Calm]

There's nothing wrong with saying that JS was literally the author of the BoM. Whatever the nature of the inspiration, it had to come through his head, his perceptions, his choice of words, in the end....

If one wants to describe all translators as "authors" than yes, this would be accurate. But "author" also refers to the source of the ideas/concepts for the text and a translator does not create those, but uses the original author's concepts and merely shifts them into another language...or at least attempts to.

[halconero]

If a democratic government votes to declare war on another state the dissenting parties are still obligated to contribute to the effort. If such were not the case a significant percentage of the population would shoulder/hinder the entire cause. Though many governments now classify passive dissenters it was not too long ago that even these would be identified as traitors.

I may be wrong but I imagine the kingsmen being divided along passive and violent dissenters. Some actively attempted to topple the republican government of the Nephites, while others refused to support it in its war effort against the Lamanites. I can imagine Pahoran and Moroni viewing both as traitors, and it is apartment that under Nephite law they were dealt with by capital punishment.

Note: I don't want this to get political so please note that I'm just giving a historical outlook on how past states have viewed passive and active dissenters. No further extrapolation on my current viewpoints regarding the same topic need be attempted - Halconero & Associates Canadian Law Firm, Ltd.

[Calm]

If a democratic government....the republican government of the Nephites

If I remember correctly, Brant Gardner and others would challenge the position that the government of the Nephites was democratic/republican or anything like our own. I will try and find some discussion about it.

The end of the reign of Mosiah II is the conclusion of the reign of the kings among the Nephites. The transition from kings to judges had several parallels in Mesoamerican political systems. It is important to understand that the roots of the shift from a monarchic to a more communal government structure were already in place in the Book of Mormon prior to Mosiah’s abolition of the monarchy. The “voice of the people” was a communal mechanism that even acted to confirm kingship.26

The change from a king to a more communal system of judges was clearly seen in Chichen Itza near the end of the classic period.27 While not as conclusive as the Chichen Itza case, the argument for an oligarchic political structure at Teotihuac·n is very strong.28 Just as with the Book of Mormon case, the structures that allowed this power shift away from single kings to a more communal rule were already in place and functioning in the monarchies. Ethnohistorical sources tell us that Maya communities had a popol nah, or a “mat house.”

The “mat house” was a community location where the “lords convened, where all important community matters were discussed, and where disputes were adjudicated.”29 These communal locations for the convening of lords and judging disputes provides a direct parallel to the Nephite judge system. The shift from king to judges would have been as natural a change for the Nephites in Zarahemla as it was for the people of Chichen Itza, and probably Teotihuac·n. For the Maya, there are tantalizing hints in some of the glyphic material that this process began even during the reign of some kings,30 with some kings being required to share power, and the glory in stone, with these lordly judges.

The unique Mesoamerican political systems provide further definitions that inform our understanding of events in the Book of Mormon. One place where there is a clear consonance with Mesoamerican politics, and an equally clear dissonance with Joseph Smith’s worldview, is found in the account of the Ammon’s missionary efforts among the Lamanites. In Alma 20 we have the converted king Lamoni accompanying Ammon on a visit to the king of land of Middoni. On the way they meet Lamoni’s father who is the king over all of the Lamanite lands. This first situation is foreign to the typical western European concept of kings. Kings might rule over lords, and emperors over kings, but we do not expect a king over kings. This concept is so engrained in our Western thinking that the title of King of Kings is immediately applied to Christ and to none other. Nevertheless, we have precisely this situation in Mesoamerica, most powerfully attested with the translation of the glyphs that outline the political over-lordship of such places as Tikal and Calakmul and many others.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[halconero]

Perhaps not democratic in the modern sense (it appears as though judges serve for life or until they resign), but the people do have a say in the administration and laws of the Nephite state(s).

Helaman 5:2

2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who bchose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were dripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

Even if it was closer to a communal aristocracy that would drive the point home even more, with dissension in war times, either passive or aggressive, being looked on as treason.

[Calm]

Even if it was closer to a communal aristocracy that would drive the point home even more, with dissension in war times, either passive or aggressive, being looked on as treason.

Very much agree.

[Sevenbak]

On another thread, Rhythm mentioned this, and as I'm intrigued, decided to start a topic for them.

Look at some of the things Lincoln did during the Civil War, and you'll feel better about Moroni trampling on the "rights" of the enemies of the state.

[Darren10]

Regarding the opening post, I think that the mere fact that a pardon was offered to the King Men at all was a great act of mercy.

[The Nehor]

Weren't those kingmen arrested after being captured while bearing arms in rebellion?

That is still a capital crime in the US. In fact in some nations of Europe that have abolishedmthe death penalty treason is still a capital offense.

[rhythm]

What is the alternative, put them in a high security prison? Exile them to their country of origin who will then try them and put them in a high security prison? They attempted to take over the government which lead to a devastating war and the loss of thousands of lives. They were given two choices - stop trying to topple the government which will lead to the destruction or our nation or die. They chose death. During war, if the enemy refuses to surrender, you kill them. What other choice do you have?

When we impose the morality of a developed nation that is part of a global community on a collection of bronze age tribal nations whose very existence is always on the verge of collapse we are bound to get into trouble.

Their attempted takeover (they wanted a king over the land) appears to have amounted to mere petitions to change the law, and when chief judge Pahoran refused, it became "a warm dispute... but not unto bloodshed." They wanted Pahoran to give up the judgment seat. The voice of the people decided he should remain chief judge, so the issue was resolved. The king-men's actions didn't lead to the war, they were just trying to effect changes in the government at a "critical time" when war was imminent.

What the king-men did wrong, was smugly refuse to fight in the war against Amalickiah, trying to stab back at Pahoran and the freemen because they didn't change the law and establish a king.

Then Moroni is angry and gets permission from the governor and the people to compel the king-men to either fight against Amalickiah or be put to death. That's what I disagree with. I understand that the king-men's refusal to fight to defend their country was considered treason, but I don't necessarily view it as such and don't agree with Moroni's decision to kill them. It's not like the king-men were fighting against Moroni and the people--they were just refusing to help them defend the country. Not exactly noble, but far from being a capital crime, in my opinion.

In contrast to Nephi being constrained by the Spirit to kill Laban, Moroni only mentions his anger leading to his actions, and although he doesn't break any laws by killing the king-men (because the government allowed him to compel them to fight or be put to death), I still see his actions as morally wrong. Though obviously the BoM is an abridgement and we don't have all the details, etc.

Anyway, this episode strikes me as a better example of the "ends justifying the means" to get hung up about than Nephi killing Laban. The end in this case being to stop dissent (and compel some of the king-men to defend their country). The means: killing 4,000 dissenters and imprisoning leaders who were not killed. Apparently "it is better that 4,000 men should perish than that a nation should be a little less powerful in defending itself" or "it is better that 4,000 men should perish than that there should be dissent among a nation."

If a democratic government votes to declare war on another state the dissenting parties are still obligated to contribute to the effort. If such were not the case a significant percentage of the population would shoulder/hinder the entire cause. Though many governments now classify passive dissenters it was not too long ago that even these would be identified as traitors.

I may be wrong but I imagine the kingsmen being divided along passive and violent dissenters. Some actively attempted to topple the republican government of the Nephites, while others refused to support it in its war effort against the Lamanites. I can imagine Pahoran and Moroni viewing both as traitors, and it is apartment that under Nephite law they were dealt with by capital punishment.

Note: I don't want this to get political so please note that I'm just giving a historical outlook on how past states have viewed passive and active dissenters. No further extrapolation on my current viewpoints regarding the same topic need be attempted - Halconero & Associates Canadian Law Firm, Ltd.

This is interesting, but despite Moroni's actions being considered lawful, I still don't agree with them. I don't think passive people should be compelled to do anything, and don't view dissent as being worthy of death.

Look at some of the things Lincoln did during the Civil War, and you'll feel better about Moroni trampling on the "rights" of the enemies of the state.

That's irrelevant to me because I don't believe I should hold Lincoln in any spiritual regard.

[Calm]

Wasn't the king-men's first appearance with Amalickiah and if so, they demonstrated they would actively work against the established government if they had a chance, even to the point of defecting to the Lamanites who were at war with the Nephites:

3 Now the leader of those who were wroth against their brethren was a large and a strong man; and his name was Amalickiah.

4 And Amalickiah was desirous to be a king; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were seeking for power.

5 And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people.

6 Thus they were led away by Amalickiah to dissensions, notwithstanding the preaching of Helaman and his brethren, yea, notwithstanding their exceedingly great care over the church, for they were high priests over the church.

7 And there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words of Amalickiah, therefore they dissented even from the church; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi exceedingly precarious and dangerous, notwithstanding their great victory which they had had over the Lamanites, and their great rejoicings which they had had because of their deliverance by the hand of the Lord.

8 Thus we see how quick the children of men do forget the Lord their God, yea, how quick to do iniquity, and to be led away by the evil one.

9 Yea, and we also see the great wickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men.

10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous’ sake.

11 And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah.

12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—

14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored.

17 And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south—A chosen land, and the land of liberty.

18 And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.

19 And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part, and crying with a loud voice, saying:

20 Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

21 And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God; or, in other words, if they should transgress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ashamed to take upon them the name of Christ, the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments.

22 Now this was the covenant which they made, and they cast their garments at the feet of Moroni, saying: We covenant with our God, that we shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression; yea, he may cast us at the feet of our enemies, even as we have cast our garments at thy feet to be trodden under foot, if we shall fall into transgression.

23 Moroni said unto them: Behold, we are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; yea, we are a remnant of the seed of Joseph, whose coat was rent by his brethren into many pieces; yea, and now behold, let us remember to keep the commandments of God, or our garments shall be rent by our brethren, and we be cast into prison, or be sold, or be slain.

24 Yea, let us preserve our liberty as a remnant of Joseph; yea, let us remember the words of Jacob, before his death, for behold, he saw that a part of the remnant of the coat of Joseph was preserved and had not decayed. And he said—Even as this remnant of garment of my son hath been preserved, so shall a remnant of the seed of my son be preserved by the hand of God, and be taken unto himself, while the remainder of the seed of Joseph shall perish, even as the remnant of his garment.

25 Now behold, this giveth my soul sorrow; nevertheless, my soul hath joy in my son, because of that part of his seed which shall be taken unto God.

26 Now behold, this was the language of Jacob.

27 And now who knoweth but what the remnant of the seed of Joseph, which shall perish as his garment, are those who have dissented from us? Yea, and even it shall be ourselves if we do not stand fast in the faith of Christ.

28 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites.

29 And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites—and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken—therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the land of Nephi.

30 Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

31 Therefore Moroni thought it was expedient that he should take his armies, who had gathered themselves together, and armed themselves, and entered into a covenant to keep the peace—and it came to pass that he took his army and marched out with his tents into the wilderness, to cut off the course of Amalickiah in the wilderness.

32 And it came to pass that he did according to his desires, and marched forth into the wilderness, and headed the armies of Amalickiah.

33 And it came to pass that Amalickiah fled with a small number of his men, and the remainder were delivered up into the hands of Moroni and were taken back into the land of Zarahemla.

34 Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them.

35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

The kingmen were not just passive, but had officially allied with the enemy and were joining their military strength to the Lamanites. Moroni stopped most from being successful in their defection and then left most off because they swore to support the cause of freedom.

A covenant they in a short time...well, about ten years later, once more violated. And considering the career of those kingmen defectors who had made it to the Lamanites, who then took control and whipped the Lamanites up into battle fever...I can see why Moroni wasn't too happy to have even passive dissentors sitting there behind his back. How was he to know they wouldn't immediately grab their arms and form an opposing army at his back leaving his men stuck between two opposing forces.

Then we have this:

16 Yea, had it not been for the war which broke out among ourselves; yea, were it not for these king-men, who caused so much bloodshed among ourselves; yea, at the time we were contending among ourselves, if we had united our strength as we hitherto have done; yea, had it not been for the desire of power and authority which those king-men had over us; had they been true to the cause of our freedom, and united with us, and gone forth against our enemies, instead of taking up their swords against us, which was the cause of so much bloodshed among ourselves;

Again not just sitting idly by watching the war pass by, they took up swords and fought and killed rather than surrendering at the beginning.

And in the middle of the war itself, the kingmen attempt a coup:

3 But behold, there are those who do joy in your afflictions, yea, insomuch that they have risen up in rebellion against me, and also those of my people who are freemen, yea, and those who have risen up are exceedingly numerous.

4 And it is those who have sought to take away the judgment-seat from me that have been the cause of this great iniquity; for they have used great flattery, and they have led away the hearts of many people, which will be the cause of sore affliction among us; they have withheld our provisions, and have daunted our freementhat they have not come unto you.

This is a good outline of the king-men and their leaders' activities, these guys weren't passive, as soon as they thought they could get away with it, they took up weapons again....:

http://maxwellinstit...&chapid=897

There is speculation that the king-men were part of a group of Mulekite aristocracy that had been trying to get back into power ever since the Nephites came along and the government had passed to them, that the civil wars were pretty much all king-men versus free men. If so, there is a lot of back history going that would have accounted for the decision to insist they covenant to uphold liberty or be killed. Unfortunately, it appears the covenant meant little to them and they continued their efforts to overthrow the established government even in the midst of war no matter what. They even used the Lamanites to further their schemes.

Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You might find this article useful as well to help frame the discussion:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=3&num=1&id=48&cat_id=280

[rhythm]

Thanks for your posts calmoriah. I'd really have to go back and do another reading (beyond Alma 51) to further understand everything-- the king-men in Alma 51 vs. the king-men earlier, etc.

Again not just sitting idly by watching the war pass by, they took up swords and fought and killed rather than surrendering at the beginning.

I don't know if this is referring to events 10 years prior, or to the king-men who had already defected vs. the king-men in Alma 51, but it makes sense that the Alma 51 king-men would try to defend themselves when Moroni sends the army to slaughter them. It doesn't sound like they were very successful though:

17

And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.

18 And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled to the earth.

Anyway, again, thanks for your posts and the next time I read the Book of Mormon (or Alma at least) I'll delve more deeply into this, check the additional links and references, etc.

[rhythm]

Well.. ended up checking out a link now. This is relevant (although I don't agree with it 100% and as I mentioned, I need to do further studying on the matter before continuing a discussion):

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=73&chapid=897

Q. But hold on! What about all those men who were put to death for not joining Moroni's army?

A. They have been represented as conscientious objectors and pacifists, but they were the exact opposite. Note that Moroni specifies that he sheds the blood of his Nephite brethren only when they take the sword against him (Alma 61:11). He explains the situation: "Were it not for these king-men, who caused so much bloodshed among ourselves; . . . had they been true to the cause of our freedom, and united with us, and gone forth against our enemies, instead of taking up their swords against us, which was the cause of so much bloodshed among ourselves; . . . we should have dispersed our enemies" (Alma 60:16). These were no pacifists or foot-dragging Nephites, but a paramilitary combine out to use force to gain political ends. They were Amalickiahites, both stirring up war with the Lamanites and planning to shed the blood of the opposition at home: "And . . . whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, . . . [Moroni] caused to be put to death, . . . and there were but few" (Alma 46:35). The Amalickiahites had welcomed the approaching Lamanites, glad in their hearts that the government was in trouble, and though Moroni reasoned with them and appealed to their sense of gratitude and fair play, they would not budge from their hostile position: "When Moroni saw . . . that the Lamanites were coming into the borders of the land, he was exceedingly wroth because of the stubbornness of those people whom he had labored with so much diligence to preserve" (Alma 51:14). Even so, the Amalickiahites were not taken from their homes or cut down in the streets, but all met their fate on the battlefield in the very act of laying about them with their swords—they were fairly beaten in an open fight which they invited. "The armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni, they were hewn down and leveled to the earth" (Alma 51:18). The victims were not helpless prisoners but armed warriors on the field of battle.

Q. But were not those cut down who refused to take up arms in defense of their country?

A. Cut down, but only on the battlefield during the battle: "Those of their leaders who were not slain in battlewere taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period" (Alma 51:19). Those not slain in battle had also refused to take up arms in defense of their country, yet they were not put to death even when taken with arms in their hands, but were remanded for trial.

Q. How did the trial go?

A. They were all released when they surrendered rather than be smitten down by the sword. They were not even executed for treason, but were only required henceforth to "fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage" (Alma 51:21), which I think they willingly did in the face of what followed.

[rhythm]

The article on dissent in the section "Fifth, there are times when firmness, even physical compulsion, is necessary to stop dissenters." talks about other times Moroni uses force to prevent something from happening also. I disagree with those too. I would say instead of trying to use force to prevent dissenters from leaving the Nephites for fear that they will ally themselves with the Lamanites and wage war against the Nephites, wait until that actually happens. Instead of preemptively striking, fight in self-defense.

[volgadon]

Then Moroni is angry and gets permission from the governor and the people to compel the king-men to either fight against Amalickiah or be put to death. That's what I disagree with. I understand that the king-men's refusal to fight to defend their country was considered treason, but I don't necessarily view it as such and don't agree with Moroni's decision to kill them. It's not like the king-men were fighting against Moroni and the people--they were just refusing to help them defend the country. Not exactly noble, but far from being a capital crime, in my opinion.

Along with Calmoriah's excellent observations I would add that the king's men formed a sizeable, antagonistic faction of just those people (lower judges) who would be expected to field armed forces. Even if they did absolutely nothing, that by itself would be sufficiently damaging. It reduced both the fighting strength of the Nephite armies and the ability to field fresh reinforcements, or provide a reserve.