Did the Crips Take Over an LDS Church?

What public footage and open-source reporting reveal about the LDS church shooting in Salt Lake City.

Did a Gang Take Over an LDS Church?

Over the past several days, I have been analyzing video and photo evidence connected to the shooting that occurred during a funeral at an LDS church in Salt Lake City. Initial reporting focused on the shooting itself, with limited discussion of what was taking place inside the building prior to the violence.

Since then, additional publicly released analysis has circulated online, including reporting from an analyst who publishes under the name S2 Underground. This information is open source and publicly available, not confidential or law enforcement protected.

According to that analysis, the shooting was not random, not ideologically motivated, and not directed at the LDS Church as a religious institution. Instead, it appears to be the result of ongoing gang conflict involving the Tongan Crip Gang (TCG).

The reporting alleges that while the facility is a legitimate LDS church, this specific ward has, for some time, functioned as a de facto community hub for TCG members. Photo and video evidence from the night of the shooting show a heavy gang presence inside the building, including individuals displaying gang colors, wearing face coverings, consuming alcohol, flashing gang signs, and exerting informal control over entry points.

It would indicate that this was not a one time gang presence at a church funeral that caught officials off guard. It would suggest that criminal identity and influence had already become normalized within that space. That distinction changes how churches should think about risk, accountability, and long term security posture.

The funeral included people in gang attire, drinking alcohol in the church and decorating the church with gang colors

Additional publicly available information indicates that services at this location are conducted exclusively in the Tongan language. While language alone is not an indicator of criminal activity, it does help explain the demographic concentration present during the event. Further reporting states that the deceased individual whose funeral was being held was an active Crips member while also being involved in the church. If confirmed, that detail reinforces the assessment that this was a gang related shooting rather than a religiously motivated attack.

Law enforcement has not publicly confirmed gang involvement, despite the gang unit reportedly leading the investigation. Two suspects remain at large. The absence of clear public explanation has led to confusion and speculation, including unfounded fears that churches are being targeted broadly.

Churches cannot allow criminal identity, gang symbolism, or power projection to take root inside their buildings. Welcoming people who are seeking repentance is one thing. Allowing visible allegiance to violent criminal organizations is another. When gang colors, symbols, and behavior are tolerated inside a church, the risk does not remain symbolic. It becomes operational.

Funerals and memorial services connected to criminal networks carry elevated risk. They require clear conduct rules, visible leadership presence, early coordination with law enforcement, and the willingness to remove individuals who refuse to comply. Avoiding confrontation does not prevent violence. It simply delays it.

This is not about turning churches into fortresses. It is about discernment, boundaries, and protecting innocent people who come to worship in good faith.

As more information becomes public, I will continue to update this assessment. The goal remains the same. Help churches recognize warning signs early, act decisively, and prevent violence before it happens.