As the title asks, what does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach its members about the responsibility to defend themselves and others?

The New Testament is _very_ clear that Christians should love their enemy and turn the other cheek. Similarly, Christians should defend others and stand up against injustice. These things are _somewhat_ at odds. An idealised Christian behaviour would be to accept mistreatment of _oneself_ over harming their enemy, and easily forgiving grievances. But what about harming "the enemy" who is mistreating someone else? As far as the end result is concerned, should a Christian harm "the enemy" attacking some other "innocent party", so as to protect the weak, or stand by, out of love for the "enemy"? Should the Christian do the minimal harm to the enemy that pushes against the immediate danger to the "third party", or go further than that, seeking more long-term security to the "third party"? Should a "Christian defender" easily forgive crimes committed against the third party out of love to "the enemy", or pursue them to correct the injustice, in favour of the "third party", causing harm to "the enemy"? Defending "the innocent party", or more broadly pursuing justice, may require doing a lot of harm to "the enemy" (think, for example, in the cases of armed robbery, or intervention in an unjust war), how should a Christian balance these responsibilities? I'm most interested in a Catholic perspective, but any Christian perspective is most welcome!

Does any of the early church fathers teach that we as Christians are allowed to defend ourselves if our life is in severe danger and if so what church fathers taught this?

As you know there were many prophets in the Bible who were armed and had swords for self-defence. Jesus himself allowed St. Peter and his apostles to buy a sword for self-defence. But did any of the Early Church Fathers believe that being armed to defend yourself was ever justified?

Related but not answered: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3734/when-do-we-as-christians-draw-the-line-on-self-defense?r=SearchResults Context: South Africa has a rather high rate of crime, far, far, far higher than America, Canada, or Europe. Please leave these references in as they are important for where I am coming from with this question. If a Christian believes in self defense and kills an unbeliever who is breaking the law by committing a crime and about to rape or kill themselves or a family member or friend, is the burden of that person going to hell on the Christian? Should the Christian have at least tried to present the gospel to the person - as ridiculous as that sounds? Should the Christian let the unbeliever kill or rape their family or children (read the news in South Africa 😭) knowing that their family is born again and will be face to face with Jesus when they die? What about God's plans for their family's lives? What about God's plan for that unbelieving criminal's life? I understand that we as Christians are responsible TO people, and not FOR people, but I don't know how that applies in this area please.

Can you hit someone in self defence? That is, if someone is trying to kill you, can you hit them to protect yourself? What is the Catholic doctrine on such a question?

I'm asking in the context of the Catholic Church's doctrines on just war and self-defense. 1. Is it justifiable to kill an innocent person in order to prevent a greater evil, with no other practical alternatives available in the situations described below? 2. Is there any difference with intentionally killing innocent people and allowing innocent people to die to prevent a greater evil such as in World War II when the Allies didn't want the Germans to know that Enigma had been broken? Context: My question was heavily edited but was primarily motivated by warfare and espionage wherein sometimes double agents have to kill innocent people or allow innocent people to die in order to maintain their cover because their mission is crucial in the sense that a lot more people will die. I don't see how them doing that is any different from ending an ectopic pregnancy on the former case in this passage from Wikipedia : > advocates of double effect typically consider the intentional terror > bombing of non-combatants having as its goal victory in a legitimate > war morally out of bounds, while holding as ethically in bounds an act > of strategic bombing that similarly harms non-combatants with > foresight but without intent as a side effect of destroying a > legitimate military target Of course double agents will usually do everything in their power to minimize the loss of innocent lives by convincing their false superiors to take hostages or to tolerate in some way, but if there's no other practical alternative, why not kill innocent people? It's not like you intend to do it like what terrorists do. It's something you have to do in the while being undercover in the enemy camp (it could be a drug gang or terrorist group). Thought about it more and it seems that you're actually being forced or blackmailed by the enemy. So really, it's like they're killing the innocent people. I think what's important here is intention. No double agent intends for innocent people to be killed. Those innocent people are collateral damage. Terrorists incorrectly use the term "collateral damage" since they intend for innocent people to be killed. I'm going to give some examples: 1. In Harry Potter, Snape kills Dumbledore in order to prove to Voldemort that Snape is not loyal to Dumbledore. This is extremely critical in the plot to defeat Voldemort. There are no practical alternatives and not doing so leads to a lot more death and suffering if Voldemort comes to power. It's not really something Snape does out of his own free will. Voldemort intends to kill Dumbledore so Snape is forced. 2. In a thriller I saw, the protagonist, who was with legitimate authority, had to shoot her partner in order to prove to the drug dealers that she was not working with the legitimate authority. If the protagonist refuses, the protagonist, her partner and countless others will die, and the drug dealers will succeed in their drug dealing. Again, it's not really something the protagonist does out of her own free will. The drug dealers intend to kill her partner so the protagonist is forced. Are they not forced? Is there a really a choice to make?

At what line do Christians stop at self defense? Take a look here: Matthew 5:39 > But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. So where do we draw the line to defend ourselves? Or are we supposed to let them go as far to seriously hurt us or even to kill us?

Every year, "end times" and apocalyptic films, books, and articles are produced in both the wider popular culture, and in religious contexts. In almost every post-disaster scenario as typically portrayed in media productions, riots, mobs, and an every-man-for-himself setting is typically envisaged. As Christians, we *know* God will take care of us and that whatever happens is for His glory. For those of us who are married or have children, we have been entrusted, as husbands, to care for our wives, and, as parents, to guard, train, and raise our children in a God-honoring way. From another [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2785/69) , I believe it has been established that a Christian is free to serve in the military to the limit of their conscience (ie, the Bible neither proscribes, nor prescribes the activity). Just before He was betrayed, Jesus told his disciples to make sure they had swords to bring with them (they had two). In the broader context of scripture, what should make up a Christian response to self-defense, and of defending the defenseless? What passages of the Bible support (or preclude) such action? and to what limit (if any) is that action to not exceed?