cdcunningham_A_painting_in_the_style_of_Gustave_Caillebotte_of__5260fb34-7b7e-4cc9-b569-dfc63db39815

It’s Time for Latter-day Saints to Have a Civil Rights Organization

Latter-day Saints lack a dedicated civil rights group, leading to challenges in political and cultural advocacy

Civil rights organizations have long been an important part of the fabric of The United States of America. Formalized organizations with the purpose of advocating for the legal rights of specific groups within the political framework of our nation began in the latter half of the nineteenth century and saw major growth in the early years of the twentieth century.

Some of the most influential organizations working today saw their birth during these time periods, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Many of these organizations came about to help rectify historic injustices faced by members of their community. But this is far from the only purpose of civil rights organizations.

The mechanisms of legal change are often benefited by civil rights organizations. By having organizations dedicated to these issues, they can raise awareness of certain trends that affect the people their organization represents, they can raise funds to pursue legal cases important to their cause, they can engage in lobbying for laws that will disproportionately affect their community, or litigate laws that do. In many real ways, identity groups without their own civil rights organization are at a disadvantage in the United States’ political and cultural arena. 

One of the earliest groups with this kind of focus is the National Grange. While it started more as a fraternal organization, it soon recognized it could play an important role in advocating for the needs, interests and rights of farmers and rural communities—a group that required distinct advocacy but that had not experienced historic discrimination.

Today, there are many civil rights organizations. Some represent the needs of historically disadvantaged groups, such as the NAACP or the ADL. But many represent other groups, such as the NRA, AARP, or the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Identity groups without their own civil rights organization are at a disadvantage.

These civil rights advocacy groups often represent the needs of religious groups in the United States. There are those that primarily represent those from large religious groups, such as the Christian Legal Society, Thomas More Society, Alliance Defending Freedom, Catholic Civil Rights League, or the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. And there are others that represent the needs of minority religious groups, such as the Sikh Coalition, Hindu American Foundation, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Christian Science Committee on Publication, International Buddhist Committee of Washington D.C., or the American Taoist Association.

After Protestants and Catholics, Latter-day Saints represent the third largest religious identification in the United States, with a very similar population to American Jews.

There are many civil rights organizations that focus on the Jewish population or issues of importance to them. These include the Anti-Defamation League, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and what is widely believed to be the earliest civil rights organization for a religious group, the American Jewish Committee.

There is no comparable organization among Latter-day Saints.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself has often acted as the primary focus for efforts to advocate for Latter-day Saints. But it’s a religious, not a civil rights organization. And its public affairs arm is by its nature suited for response, not advocacy.

There are a few other groups that seek to advance Latter-day Saint interests such as FAIR Latter-day Saints, The Widtsoe Foundation, Faith Matters, and the Elizabeth McCune Institute, but they do so through educational, devotional, and apologetic work rather than legal advocacy or media relations. A gap remains in dedicated Latter-day Saint civil rights advocacy.

On the political side, the most notable movement has been Mormon Women for Ethical Government, an organization of left-wing Latter-day Saint women that arose to oppose Donald Trump and the politicians who supported him. But their focus was on a specific political issue, not on representing the needs of Latter-day Saint women. Similarly, Brigham Young University has an International Center for Law and Religious Society that does important advocacy work on a topic of importance to Latter-day Saints, international religious freedom, but has not paid any sustained specific attention to Latter-day Saints beyond their own identification with the faith. 

There are a handful of individual voices that note civil rights issues related to Latter-day Saints, who have drawn notable if moderate followings on social media, but even these individuals tend to be more focused on devotional and cultural issues. And their efforts lack the kind of structure and planning that a single organization can provide.

The lack of a Latter-day Saint civil rights organization has had a negative effect in many arenas of public life.

Effective advocacy can build cultural cachet.

Let us be clear: Latter-day Saints are happy, successful, productive citizens of the United States. While we do have our own specific history of persecution,  that continues to have lingering effects, we do not need to claim to be a uniquely persecuted group to warrant or benefit from a civil rights organization devoted to our specific needs in addressing these specific problems.

Even those who are dismissive of complaints about the mistreatment of Latter-day Saints as being not that important can recognize that many groups who are substantially successful in the United States still benefit from legal organizations that are dedicated to supporting their civil rights. In fact, the lack of such an organization could play a notable role in allowing the mistreatment of certain groups to fester or remain. Effective advocacy can build cultural cachet—the kind Latter-day Saints continue to lack.

Given this environment, we believe it is time for a civil rights organization to be founded specifically to advocate for the rights of Latter-day Saints in political, legal, and cultural spaces.

About the author

Public Square Staff

Our core team, including our Editor in Chief, Editor at Large, Managing Editor, Associate Editor, and Social Media Director.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Demanding Conversations About Violence

In the weeks since the premiere of the Under the Banner of Heaven miniseries, there has been a broad consensus that the show doesn’t quite work. Its attempt to paint Latter-day Saints as promoting violence just doesn’t land. And its depiction of Latter-day Saints simply doesn’t resonate because it’s too dissimilar. This of course must come as some disappointment to critics of the Church who had hoped the series would prompt more conversations around the issues they deem problematic such as how the Church promotes violence. Into this void comes a new argument made most prominently by Taylor Petrey, but also echoed by a student columnist at the University of Utah, and now promoted on Twitter by Benjamin Park—namely, that because there has been some violence done by some Latter-day Saints who use the language of their culture in perpetrating it, Latter-day Saints should watch the series with the intent to learn how to make their Church less violent. Both Petrey and Park had previously criticized the series for its poor job in portraying Latter-day Saints, but have since shifted. We don’t want to attack the Daily Utah Chronicle piece because it’s a student article. But Petrey and Park should know better. Some of us have been on the record defending Petrey as a serious scholar, despite the fact that his conclusions don’t often derive well from the available evidence. But Petrey seems to suggest in his article that any violence that uses the language of religion must have been inspired by that religion. We understand the temptation of this point of view. What else could we blame violence on if not the culture it arose in? But Petrey’s position assumes that human beings are naturally non-violent, and only become violent as a result of their culture. This is a major assumption in the Robert Orsi essay that Petrey relies on extensively. Parks’ tweets similarly assume that any conversation about Latter-day Saints and violence must concede that the faith contributes to the violence in some way. But the causes of violence are often complicated. Because of the importance of our innate nature in creating violence, even the most peaceful society would still produce fringe examples of extreme violence. Having a Latter-day Saint who becomes violent isn’t proof that the faith contributes to that violence, even if the perpetrator uses the language of their culture in perpetuating that violence. Cultural contexts can then increase or decrease the likelihood of that emerging, but no culture has discovered how to remove it altogether. And because Under the Banner of Heaven fails to present a clear picture of what most experience as Latter-day Saint culture, it doesn’t do much to establish whether a Latter-day Saint context is more prone to cause violence than others. Those who use Latter-day Saint or another religious language and context to perpetuate violence weren’t necessarily made violent by those cultures. But rather, violent individuals will leverage anything around them to perpetrate their violence. We’re aware of many other similar examples—of abusers, for instance, who used the language of therapy to perpetuate abuse. But it would be absurd to suggest that therapeutic culture caused that abuse. Even pacifist language has been known to be used to perpetuate violence by shaming survivors into silence. An abusive person will draw upon the most powerful language available within their given cultural context and weaponize that. This is not coincidentally the conclusion made by prosecutors in the Lafferty case, that the murder was about power and relationships and that religion was merely the pretext. Does the Church of Jesus Christ disproportionately create violent offenders? We’d be interested in reading any definitive social science research on the question, but unfortunately, those promoting this point of view or hoping to have this conversation have not yet presented any. And rather than attempt to answer this question clearly itself, Under the Banner of Heaven skips the question and takes it as a given. A study of this sort could start the conversation Petrey, Parks, and the student author hope for. Instead, we get a story about a 38-year-old murder that was notable mainly for how unusual it was among the Latter-day Saint community and perpetrated by someone who had recently been kicked out of the Church for their extremist views. It should not surprise anyone that it hasn’t prompted anyone to conclude there’s a problem with violence among Latter-day Saints.

Convenient Post-Modernism

As the last bulwark for the rule of law in our nation, I’ve been discouraged to see the attacks on the Supreme Court from all corners in light of the recently leaked decision in the Dobbs abortion case. We’ll likely be looking at this issue in greater depth in Public Square soon. But for now, I wanted to highlight just how pervasive anti-institutionalism has become across our country. https://stream.org/were-all-postmodernists-now/ John Stonestreet and G.S. Morris write for the Stream about how “We’re all Postmodernists Now.” They are focusing on a loss of trust primarily from the political right. Which is why the sudden return of this trend to the left is so noteworthy. Post-modernism is not a sustainable framework, but it is increasingly used as a temporary tool to pursue specific political or cultural goals. As Latter-day Saints, we agree with their statement that, “Truth is knowable and that it doesn’t depend on the source but a reality external to ourselves.”  These trends are certainly worthy of continued concern.