mordorbund

They were given a choice to make peace or continue with their warfare against the Nephites.  They chose warfare.
If they are continuing to be at war, then we can kill enemy combatatnts.  That happens in war time.
Remember that the tactics of the King-men were not just showing civil disobedience or peacefully protesting.  
1) They were not participating in the draft (regardless of the details, it was effectively a draft).
2) They had verbalized their explicit intentions to destroy their democratic government as they knew it and replace it with a monarchy - of their choosing.  Obviously, it would consist of people from their movement.
And as far as executions without trial... you may have missed something.
Not executions without trial.  But they were kept in jail to await their trial.  That happens in the US judicial system if the preponderance of evidence is strong enough and the nature of the crime is serious enough.
They weren't conscientious objectors.  They were perfectly happy to fight and kill to setup their own government.  They just didn't want to fight for the defense of the nation when it was governed by people they disagreed with.
They would rather the Lamanites do their dirty work to weaken the government and its armies so they could lie in wait to kill off the remnants of the Nephite army to take over after the Lamanite war was over.
These are very interesting words, are they not?  Again, it wasn't about peacefully expressing disagreement.  It was actively committing treason against their nation.  

As an experiment, ask the aforementioned young folks what they think is hypocritical about churches. Really dig for their fundamental answer (in a polite way, of course). I guarantee that you will quickly find that the large majority believe religious people and organizations are hypocritical simply because that is what they have been told all of their lives.
Ask for examples, and you won't get many. Perhaps the most popular will be "homophobia" among religious people; but of course, "homophobia" itself is a lie, a term made up not to explain anything but to smear people who hold to certain beliefs and moral standards. Explain that considering homosexuality to be an immoral act is no more intrinsically evil than considering demonstrations against abortion to be an immoral act. If you wade through the levels of argument to reach the core idea of living by a moral standard, they will simply drop the topic rather than grapple with their own inconsistency and hypocrisy. Prepare to be called lots of names, because that's their idea of solid argumentation against evil.
I'm painting with a broad brush, and you will certainly find exceptions, but what I have described is what I have found to be the rule. Today's young adults are no smarter than their parents, and have the added handicap of having been indoctrinated with a much worse, more vile background ideology.

This is similar to a thought I had, except I approached it this way:
Perhaps the word "greater" is not an attempt to compare two sins in terms of which one is more damning to the offender but rather which one is more damning to the original offended. No matter the damage caused to an individual by someone else's sin it does not condemn the offended only the offender. But withholding forgiveness is more damning to the offended than any consequence to the offended by the first sin and so strictly from the perspective of the offended's own eternal welfare, withholding forgiveness is the greater sin.
This may have been what @CV75 or others may have been getting at but I just wasn't understanding the point they were making. But if this is what the Lord had in mind then that makes more sense to my imperfect mortal reasoning.

Greater than the sin his brother committed against him. At least, that's how I've always understood it. I've always wrestled with this doctrine; it's so unfair. But when I decry something as unfair, in almost all cases it means I don't understand what's really going on. And so I think is the case here. We in our mortal state dutifully strain out insignificant gnats while swallowing whole camels, and often don't even realize that's what we're doing.

Allow me to put it another way: "I want God to forgive me, but I don't want him to forgive those who have sinned against me."  Is not this wanting to murder someone spiritually (since without forgiveness, one suffers spiritual death)?
Can you want God to forgive those who have sinned against you while you yourself refuse to forgive those who have sinned against you?
NOTE: Refusing to forgive someone is not the same as, "I can't figure out how to forgive him, yet, but I'm trying."

You may not agree with my Protestant theology, but I would say that to be "saved in your sins" would mean that you can carry on sinning merrily away and you'll still be saved. (This is a common strawman.) To be "saved from your sins" means that  you were once under the power of sin but are no longer. Not only does Christ take the punishment of your sin upon himself (and that would include your future sins), but he also changes you so you become less sinful, and eventually become like him.
I liked that too. "You know perfectly well there is a God, you just find it convenient to ignore the fact!" (Actually now I look back that was verse 24.)
Verse 34 talks about "claim on mercy". Some Christians balk at the idea that we can have any kind of "claim on God", or to have God "in our debt". I have a theory about this, which I have never been able to articulate fully without someone "butting in" on me. But for what its worth, here it is:
Imagine there was a father who was worried about his teenage son's poor performance at school. He had tried to impress upon him the importance of working hard and getting a good job, but it was never any use. So one day he says to him, "Son, you know how you are always complaining that you don't have your own car? If you get an A for your next school report, I will buy you one." So the son works hard and (much to his teachers' astonishment) gets an A. He takes the report card to his father and says "OK Dad, I kept my side of the bargain, now you owe me a car."
Well in an absolute sense of course he doesn't. (Legally speaking, he would be quite within his rights if he refused.) But within the context of the covenant he made with his son, he does owe him a car.

There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone.
In the 1970s he was considered a liberal.
In the 1990s he was considered moderate.
Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative. 
His views never changed. 

We teach our little children in Primary (an organization that lays a base-level "primary" foundation of understanding of the gospel and the Restored Church) that we are all children of our heavenly Father, to whom we pray. When our children are teenagers, we introduce the idea of "becoming" children of Christ; that is, there is a sense of accepting God as our Father that goes beyond the Primary picture of "Father in heaven", a state we actively pursue. I suspect that most adult Latter-day Saints are in the process of discovering what it means to become a child of God and how they can implement that in their own lives and actions.
I might say that, but I would probably try to avoid the issue as a semantic discussion that doesn't really shed much light on the important topics we try to deal with day to day.
I mean, if God hated the Lamanites (Helaman 15:4), then I think it's a foregone conclusion that he hates Satan. But what does that even mean?
Here is what I think it means: God's love is demonstrated, in fact measured, by his blessings to us. In the so-called Love Languages, God is not a Words of Affirmation or a Physical Touch kind of guy (those would be me). God is most definitely in the Giving and Receiving Gifts camp. We show our love to him, not by word or touch, but by giving him the gift of our broken hearts and contrite spirits. In return, God shows his love to us by giving us the gift of his Spirit, the covenants we make with him, and eventually, eternal life itself.
But God's gifts are received only by those who choose to receive them. Thus, in this most practical of senses, God literally cannot "love" those who reject his gifts to them. And since Satan is the very prototype of rejecting God, he receives none of God's gifts except for those he has already received, such as his very existence after his spiritual creation. So saying that God does not "love" Satan, at least in this sense, is true by definition. So if you define "hatred" as the opposite of "love"—a definition I probably would not agree with, but for purposes of this discussion is fine—then it would be axiomatic that God hates Satan.
I realize I often come across as pedantic, usually when I'm stating the obvious. My only justification is that I have found that it is often helpful to state beliefs or ideas very plainly and very simply, because by doing so I both clarify my thoughts and find deep connections between ideas that maybe should have been obvious to me, but were not obvious until I explained things in simple terms.

I know what it says.  I can go read it myself (and re-did that before posting).  I asked what you meant.  It shouldn't take paragraphs of quoting to answer what you meant.
Nowhere does the essay say that the priesthood ban was revealed by God.  Nowhere does it say that the priesthood ban was not revealed by God.  The essay is silent on whether the ban was by revelation from God or was of man.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in reading comprehension.
The essay comments on the facts of the ban (who did what when).  The essay comments on after-the-fact explanations and justifications which various parties used to explain the ban.  Only these after-the-fact explanations are rejected.
Nothing in the essay negates that statement.
Other parties can twist and distort and believe what they will.  That was not my question and cannot be my concern.  My only concern is to reiterate and ensure there is no confusion on your part (nor on the part of others who will read this) that the essay is silent on the question of whether the ban was instituted by God.  Therefore, no one can use the essay to say "it wasn't revealed by God" (nor to say similar things such as, "it was instituted by Brigham Young because he was racist") - you cannot use the essay to support such an assertions, because it doesn't.

When Cthulhu goes uWu 

Speaking for myself I've always been very conscious of 1 Corinthians 11:29, and when I'm in a certain mindset I don't dare touch the sacraments. (My curate tells me this is not the right attitude to take.)

Looking at the history on Wikipedia, human courts have had a mixed history with these "Nuremburg" defenses. I guess I'm just not as convinced that God's court universally accepts a "Nuremburg" defense. I trust that God's judgements are a perfect blend of justice and mercy ("Where justice, love, and mercy meet  In harmony divine" as Sister Snow put it), and I'm sure God knows how best to handle, "I followed the prophet against my own better judgement on that issue, because I decided that is what You would have me do," and "I chose not follow the prophet and follow my own best judgement on that issue, because I decided that is what You would have me do," situations. I don't claim to know exactly how God judges those, but I trust that God knows best. Of course, that trust doesn't always help in the here and now.

Hmmmm... we'll have to try to think what might liven things up again. What about....(and I'm just tossing this up in the air here)....a competition to draw what we think each other look like? And the best drawing of each has to become their avatar?
(It's probably been thought of already!)

No, I mean there's some idiot in a lab coat standing between us.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

I have serious doubts about leadership. They are generally foolish. I respect leadership, though 
Nope. Can't say I've ever been censored. 😉

clbent04:
Late to the game, but here are my thoughts.
In LDS doctrine, the bar for salvation (resurrection to a wonderful kingdom of glory) is pretty low; it only requires what you said, an acceptance of Jesus Christ in the spirit world prior to resurrection, when he is amply/unmistakably revealed.  Yes God is a saver not condemner, even including people you yourself would rather not see saved.
But you say, "Ah, but they don't get the celetial kingdom!"  So what?  Who says they even want it?  "These will I make my rulers."  Does everyone want to be a congressman?  Would we call them condemned for not getting chosen as a congressman?  No!  (A better example would be those who were chosen to help Moses administrate the children of Israel but it is less familiar to us)
Attempting to use your same flavor of language, the terrestrial kingdom is for people who have a good condition of their hearts but don't have faith in Christ, in spite of some imperfect but sufficient exposure to that light.  (only God can determine sufficient exposure but we shouldn't deny it). Or to mimic the language of the doctrine and covenants, they are the honorable men of the earth but who were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus.  The terrestrial kingdom is awesome salvation.
So I don't really think you should be afraid to accept the importance of sharing and accepting the name of Jesus in this life.  Sure it is sketchy work with all kinds of mixed results, but that's kinda the point.  God is broadcasting light to us and we get to find out how much we like the light, and reflect and act out the same light fairly accurately.
Of course I must acknowledge that the name of Jesus is not available in human language at all places and times.  I must also acknowledge that this is no barrier to God; as his light goes out and we respond to it, there is surely ample evidence in the life of every person whether they have a portion of the celestial which can build into a fullness.
What I think is ALWAYS true, is that the celestial person must love God and not just morality.  I think this is obviously necessary.  Why are they more rewardable than those with simply good hearts?  I think it is because they know perfectly well that however good their hearts are, they are far inferior to God; and if they were to lessen the fervency of their devotion to Him, they would be slowed or stopped in their progress.
People might latch onto a certain morality and utterly corrupt it.  They might multilate thier children in the name of love and tolerance.  They need to worship Jesus instead;  he could have helped them implement their morality correctly.

Here's one I drew when our youngest was five and was upset that he didn't get to carry the flowers to the bedroom to give Mama her Mother's Day breakfast in bed. He curled up into a ball and pouted, and one of his older brothers found a lot of humor in the situation. The baby is at least an inch taller than that older brother now, so I guess that's his revenge.

Public service announcement: Pumpkin pie does not taste like pumpkin. It tastes like pumpkin pie spice.

Scary pumpkins frighten the whillies out of me...

I figure it’s because Luke is writing to a gentile audience; so he tones things down a notch.  Also, Matthew is very interested in making sure his readers know just what the Jewish establishment did to Christ and what their punishment is going to be . . . Luke has no such priorities.
With regard to a wedding garment:  what I get out of that is that even for the Johnny-come-latelies who are invited from the highways and hedgerows, there *is* a price to be paid.  They are expected to show respect for the nature of the event.  The invitation may have been to both bad and good (v 10), but the bad are expected to make themselves good (or at least be willing to explain their failure to do so and beg their Lord’s pardon) or else will find themselves being dismissed from the feast.  

I've been thinking about this on and off all afternoon, and I think I could offer another insight: that Jesus deliberately made this story ridiculous in order to give it shock and surprise value. It is not something that would ever actually happen in the real world.
We have a king - not just a rich man, but an actual king. Kings, in those days, were not people you trifled with. You certainly did not kill a king's servants - just for fun - just because they came to summon you to a feast. It was an idiotic thing to do and the result was inevitable. Yet it was exactly what the Israelites had done. Could they really be surprised by how God had dealt with them?
It's the same with the parable of the vinyard (Matthew 21:33-41). Would you send your son to reason with a bunch of cut throats who'd already murdered half your servants? I don't think you would! Yet God loved the Israelites so much that he'd done exactly that!
And the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). For a son to ask for his inheritance while his father was still alive was a supreme insult. And for the father to welcome his son back with joy after he had squandered it all on prostitutes - that was just plain ridiculous! Yet that is the extent of God's love for his children.
We accept the oddness of these stories with a shrug because we're so used to them. There could be value in recognising their silliness as part of their intended effect!
 

“Dude did you see that thing?!?!”
”Yeah, it was … I don’t know what!”
”<squealing in shock>”
”I mean…. It was…… did you see…..”
”You talking about that thing with the short nose?”
<group stare >
”<still squealing in shock>”

I believe this is true.
I also believe He is more strict, severe, and harsh than most of us give Him credit for.
Here's my take, for what it's worth.
People pit justice against mercy as if they're opposing forces (not saying you're doing that, just generally). My view has always been that justice encompasses mercy. Justice is equivalent to fairness. God is perfectly just. He is perfectly fair.
The atonement and God's plan for us with it is designed so that God can be just. Perfectly. Without the atonement I don't think God could be perfectly just. With it He can. That's why it was done. That's why it is His plan. In His perfectness he satisfies justice.
I know the scriptures speak of the theoretical, no mercy without the atonement. But I think there's also no justice without the atonement. As if God would send us to earth, give us no way to repent, and then condemn us all. He would not do that. It would not be just. But he also would not do as Satan's plan implied either...save us all regardless. That also wouldn't be just.
Justice will be. Period. There will be no "you deserved this but you're getting that instead". Everyone will get what they deserve*. They will get what they deserve BECAUSE of the atonement. (Of course we're getting into semantics here a bit, because from another view practically no one will get what they deserve. Since by strict law we all deserve the darkest hell.)
Mercy cannot rob justice. It must be PART of justice. Justice must be. God cannot be unfair. Will not be unfair. He won't punish when it isn't deserved*. He won't reward when it isn't deserved (once again "deserved" being a semantically relative term*.)
He made a way for us to escape the condemnation required from our sin. Christ paid that price. Therefore we can repent.
*The way we "deserve" anything is through the conditions set -- which conditions are faith in His name, obedience to His law, and repentance when we transgress that law.
In other words, God will not condemn any who repent... that is his mercy. But he will not save any who do not repent. That is His justice.
So yes, his mercy is greater than we understand. But we cannot and should not think that means that any of us can be saved in our sins. We can and will be saved from our sins if we repent. If we do not repent, we cannot be saved, and no amount of presumed mercy can or will change that.

I remember this photo clearly, it was taken in the late 1970s. The girl in the yellow jacket is Joanne. The elephant on the right with the big tusks is Bob.
The Article of Faith race was a regular event in my Primary. As an incentive to help us learn the Articles of Faith faster, we would line up at the starting point in the carpark. The elephants were 20 meters behind us. We would both start the race together. If we made it across the carpark while correctly reciting an Article of Faith, we were safe. If not, we would be “tusked.” I think the same technique was used to help prospective elders learn the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. It was a very effective teaching technique, but eventually the Bishop put a stop to it because the cost of feeding the elephants was too much of a drain on the ward budget.