El Tejon asked:
Please forgive my ignorance, but does not LDS require armed readiness by its members? Thought there was a requirement or at least urging to be armed?
Used to work in LE with a LDS member. He mentioned a "ready pack" or something and a supply of food. Goes back to the massacre in Illinois?
El Tejon, the church does strongly counsel members to be prepared for emergencies.
The "ready pack" you mention would be your friend's term for the recommendation that one have an easily-accessible, 72-hour kit of essential items, including food, water, needed medications, sanitation supplies, and the like, for use in the case of a disaster. Typically, in the case of an earthquake, hurricane, or other disaster, it can take as long as 72 hours for outside help to arrive; these supplies can help sustain life until help arrives.
I note that civil authorites in California have more recently started to advise the same thing, specifically out of concerns about "The Big One" (the expected replay of an 8+ magnitude earthquake similar to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake).
The church also advises that families keep a year's supply of food, clothing, and, where possible, fuel. This is in preparation for possible times of need, whether through individual problems (such a medical disability), general economic calamity (such as the Great Depression), war, or other circumstances.
There are certain members of the church who seem to be under the impression that this includes "a year's supply of guns and ammunition" with which to protect your other supplies. As far as I know, that is not the policy of the church; I have never seen any such thing in any document from the church, nor in any other communication. Rather, my understanding is that, in the case of a major calamity, members would share with their neighbors who are not members of the church.
There certainly was a time when the church asked its members to be armed. In the trek to Utah, Brigham Young directed that those journeying to the west be armed. In fact, he called one Johathan Browning, the father of John Moses Browning, to be the armorer to the Saints for the western migration .
At that time, there was a need for the Saints to be armed. Many had been murdered through persecution. Also, as they traveled west, they would potentially be exposed to hostile Indians, and to outlaws.
At the present, I'm not aware of any rash of attacks on members of the church at church meetinghouses that would require that members be armed to protect themselves. And my own personal feeling is that, yes, coming to church armed detracts from the spirit of the Lord, which is a spirit of peace, love, harmony, and caring for the wellbeing of one's neighbor. I agree, therefore, with the First Presidency's direction not to bring leathal weapons to houses of worship.
The actual letter from the church, which mowgli links to, above, is quite enlightening. It makes reference to the use of guns in Scouting, and, while affirming that Scouting activities should not bring guns to houses of worship, it also puts a stamp of approval on Scouting activities involving guns at places other than houses of worship. Clearly, the First Presidency is not anti-gun, but merely feels that implements of violence detract from the spirit of worship.
I note that the buildings called out in the letter are specifically
houses of worship; it does not appear to contemplate a carry ban at church properties that are not specifically used for worship services.
I also note that the letter makes it clear that local church leaders are to deal with the matter a very friendly, non-confrontational manner.
As others have mentioned in this thread, this is the current
policy of the church; it is not
doctrine, and as such is subject to change. If the time were to come that persecution were to again arise, and members of the church were being attacked on church grounds, I strongly suspect that the policy would change to reflect current circumstances.