Overview

As followers of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints strive to be peacemakers. They aspire to the Savior’s high standard to “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). In a modern revelation given at a time when the Saints were victims of violent persecution, the Lord commanded them to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:16).

Yet, while peace, love, and forgiveness are the Christian ideal, we live in an often-violent world. The human tendency, sadly, is to respond to violence with more violence.

To complicate the matter, there are places in the scriptures where violence appears to be justified—for example, in cases of self-defense. But while specific situations vary, for Latter-day Saints, peace is always a priority. As the Book of Mormon teaches, followers of Christ should be known for their “peaceable walk with the children of men” (Moroni 7:4).

Exploring Your Questions

Are religious people more likely to be violent?

Do the teachings and culture of Latter-day Saints foster violence?

What do Church leaders teach about political violence and vigilantism?

How do we make sense of instances of violence in the scriptures?

What led to the “Mormon-Missouri War” in the 1830s?

What is “blood atonement,” and was it a Church teaching?

What was the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Why did some early Latter-day Saints in Utah commit acts of violence against Indigenous Americans?

What is the Church’s position on capital punishment?

What is the Church’s policy on guns and gun ownership?

What is the Church’s position on war and military service?

Are religious people more likely to be violent?

Most often, religious beliefs lead people to behave unselfishly and promote peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. However, throughout history, religious ideas and loyalties, taken to extremes, have motivated or been used to justify violence. But it is wrong to conclude from this that religion makes a person violent. Incidents categorized as religious violence are frequently the result of religious beliefs becoming entangled with certain types of severe mental illness or being used to justify violence by people with bad intentions.

President Dallin H. Oaks observed “that the mass killings of the last century were not done in the name of religion. The unspeakable crimes of the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, and the ethnic cleansings in Central Africa were primarily motivated by ethnic, political, or tribal differences, not by religious rivalries. Indeed, those regimes were overtly hostile to religion. Similarly, while public attention focuses on religious extremists’ current atrocities in a few parts of the world, leaders of the very faiths they invoke have forcefully condemned their violent acts.”

Do the teachings and culture of Latter-day Saints foster violence?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strives for peace, unity, and healing through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. When a member of the Church commits a violent crime, he or she is acting against the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church.

Latter-day Saints, as the name suggests, believe that we are living in the last days before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This belief inspires members of the Church to share the gospel and create loving, peaceful communities. Unfortunately, there are some who distort the desire to build a better world to justify violent behavior. The Church condemns such behavior.

For Latter-day Saints, the solution to this kind of religious extremism is to follow Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, and encourage others to do the same. Leaders of the Church consistently teach that being a peacemaker is a defining characteristic of a follower of Christ. For example, Elder Ulisses Soares said: “One of the most evident signs that we are drawing closer to the Savior and becoming more like Him is the loving, patient, and kind way with which we treat our fellow beings, whatever the circumstances. … As we strive to develop attributes like the Savior’s, we can become instruments of His peace in the world.”

What do Church leaders teach about political violence and vigilantism?

Church leaders condemn political violence and vigilantism, encouraging Latter-day Saints to seek change peacefully. President Dallin H. Oaks has taught, “As followers of Christ we must forgo the anger and hatred with which political choices are debated or denounced in many settings.” He explained that we are obligated to obey the law and “use peaceful means to change” laws we do not agree with. “We peacefully accept the results of elections,” President Oaks continued, and “we will not participate in violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome.”

President Russell M. Nelson urged Latter-day Saints to be peacemakers in every aspect of their lives, including their political involvement. “As disciples of Jesus Christ,” he said, “we are to be examples of how to interact with others—especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people. … His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation.”

“Now is the time to lay aside bitterness,” President Nelson urged. “Now is the time to cease insisting that it is your way or no way. Now is the time to stop doing things that make others walk on eggshells for fear of upsetting you. Now is the time to bury your weapons of war. If your verbal arsenal is filled with insults and accusations, now is the time to put them away. You will arise as a spiritually strong man or woman of Christ.”

How do we make sense of instances of violence in the scriptures?

Ancient scripture contains many accounts of violence, including instances that appear to be divinely sanctioned. There is much in these scriptural accounts that we do not fully understand today. They should never be used to justify violence in the present.

One potentially unsettling example of violence in the scriptures is the Lord’s command to Nephi to kill Laban in 1 Nephi 4. Elder Dale G. Renlund taught: “No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory, but let me highlight some aspects. The episode did not begin with Nephi asking if he could slay Laban. It was not something he wanted to do. Killing Laban was not for Nephi’s personal benefit but to provide scriptures to a future nation and a covenant people. And Nephi was sure that it was revelation—in fact, in this case, it was a commandment from God.” Even so, it was a rare exception. “Thou shalt not kill” continued to be the standard for Nephi and all of God’s people (Exodus 20:13; Mosiah 13:21).

In some cases in the scriptures, however, participation in war was clearly approved by God, in specific circumstances and when the motivations were right. The Book of Mormon describes multiple wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites, and some of the book’s heroes were war heroes, like Captain Moroni. But while Moroni felt duty-bound “to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion,” he “did not delight in bloodshed” (Alma 48:11, 13). The Book of Mormon also includes the inspiring example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who, because of their conversion to Jesus Christ, determined that they would never again take up arms, even when it seemed justified in order to defend themselves. These dedicated Christians were admired and “distinguished for their zeal towards God” (Alma 27:27).

The scriptures contain many passages that describe how God feels about violence among His children, and the overwhelming message is “he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me but is of the devil” (3 Nephi 11:29). In one particularly powerful account, Enoch sees a vision of God weeping over His children. When Enoch asks why He is weeping, the Lord responds that the people of the earth “are the workmanship of mine own hands” and yet they were “without affection, and they hate their own blood” (see Moses 7:29–33). “That single, riveting scene,” declared President Jeffrey R. Holland, “does more to teach the true nature of God than any theological treatise could ever convey.”

What led to the “Mormon-Missouri War” in the 1830s?

After God identified Jackson County, Missouri, as a gathering place for the Saints in an 1831 revelation, hundreds of Saints moved there. Within two years, almost one-third of the county’s estimated population was Latter-day Saints. The new residents clashed with local Missourians politically, socially, and religiously, and this created tension between the two groups. Most Church members, for example, were from the northern United States, where slavery was outlawed, while most Missourians supported slavery. The local Missourians also resented the political power of the Saints and persecuted them for their religious beliefs. Before long, mob violence forced the Saints from their homes in Jackson County into a neighboring county.

But the population of Saints in Missouri kept growing, and as it did, the persecution continued. In an 1833 revelation, the Lord instructed the Saints, “If men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded.” After three attacks, the Saints were instructed to warn the aggressors of the possibility of a response. If the attacks continued, the Saints were to prayerfully counsel together on a course of action. If they continued to respond peacefully, the Lord would reward them for their righteousness. If they fought to defend themselves, they were “justified.”

On July 4, 1838, Sidney Rigdon, a member of the First Presidency, gave a widely publicized speech in Far West, Missouri, that fanned the flames of antagonism against the Church. After recounting the history of violence the Saints had endured, Rigdon warned that they would no longer tolerate persecution. If the attacks continued, he declared, Latter-day Saints in Missouri would wage a war to defend themselves and their rights.

Later that year, the residents of one county voted that the Saints should be forced to leave. In another county, Saints were prevented from voting, which caused a fight to break out. A mob soon attacked a nearby Latter-day Saint settlement and forced the Saints living there to flee for their lives. When Missouri’s governor, Lilburn Boggs, refused to help keep the peace, the Saints decided to fight back.

The armed fighting that followed lasted two weeks and came to be known as the Mormon-Missouri War. Twenty-one Latter-day Saints and one Missourian were killed. The conflict included an attack against the Saints at Hawn’s Mill. One result of the conflict was Governor Boggs’s “extermination order,” which authorized the militia to drive the Saints from the state or exterminate them if necessary. Many Church members were driven from the state, while some Church leaders, including the Prophet Joseph Smith, were imprisoned.

What is “blood atonement,” and was it a Church teaching?

Some early Church leaders used the phrase “blood atonement” to refer to the idea that certain sins, such as murder, are so grievous that they could be forgiven only through the shedding of the blood of the sinner.

This idea was expressed at a time when fiery preaching was common. However, most Latter-day Saints seem to have recognized that some of the forceful language in these sermons was hyperbole, intended to provoke repentance.

Blood atonement is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Instead, the Church teaches that all redemption comes because of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all.

What was the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

In September 1857, a group of Latter-day Saint militiamen, along with some Indigenous Americans they had recruited, attacked an emigrant wagon train passing through southern Utah. In what came to be known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the militiamen killed 120 people, sparing only 17 very small children. It is considered the most tragic event in Latter-day Saint history.

Speaking at the site of the massacre to an audience that included descendants of the victims, President Henry B. Eyring declared: “What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.”

For more information, see Church History Topics, “Mountain Meadows Massacre,” Gospel Library.

Why did some early Latter-day Saints in Utah commit acts of violence against Indigenous Americans?

Latter-day Saints generally had better relations with Indigenous Americans than did many other settlers in western North America. Many Latter-day Saints saw Indigenous peoples as descendants of God’s ancient covenant people and sought to share the gospel with them. Even so, many Latter-day Saints, like most European-Americans, considered America’s Native peoples to be less civilized and sought to change their way of life. Differences in culture, assumptions, and expectations sometimes led to violence between Native peoples and White settlers, including Church members.

In areas where Latter-day Saints settled, Native experiences with White people had previously consisted mostly of mutually beneficial interactions with trappers and traders, who passed through the area but did not stake permanent claim to it as Church members did. Many Indigenous peoples had lived by hunting and gathering, while the Saints planted crops, built canals, and established cities. Natives believed the settlers had a responsibility to share the goods and livestock raised on Native lands, while Latter-day Saints often accused Natives of stealing. Misunderstandings like these regrettably led to friction and sometimes violence between the groups.

What is the Church’s position on capital punishment?

The Church neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. The Church today considers capital punishment a matter to be decided by civil law.

What is the Church’s policy on guns and gun ownership?

Gun laws vary throughout the world. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should sustain the laws where they live and, where possible, work to establish laws that protect all of God’s children.

Church meetinghouses and temples are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the world. Other than current law enforcement officers, no one is allowed to carry lethal weapons in Church buildings.

What is the Church’s position on war and military service?

President Russell M. Nelson taught: “[The] scriptures … strongly condemn wars of aggression but sustain obligations of citizens to defend their families and their freedoms. Because ‘we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law’ [Articles of Faith 1:12], members of this Church will be called into military service of many nations. …

“Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace’ [Doctrine and Covenants 98:16]. As individuals, we should ‘follow after the things which make for peace’ [Romans 14:19]. We should be personal peacemakers.”

There are situations in which our desire for peace and our obligation to our country seem to contradict. In such situations, members of the Church are encouraged to seek the Lord’s guidance and follow the inspiration of His Spirit.

Some have wondered whether a member of the military who takes the life of an enemy in the course of war is guilty of murder. The Church’s General Handbook teaches that “murder does not include police or military acts in the line of duty.” It also explains that “if death was caused by accident or by defense of self or others, the taking of a human life might not be defined as murder.” The important factor to God is the intent of our heart. The Book of Mormon says of Captain Moroni, “[He] did not delight in bloodshed,” and he was considered a great man of God. His example applies to those who serve in the military today.