This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Mainstream news media are reporting that the percentage population of some Utah counties are becoming less “Mormon.” They attach a narrative that this somehow indicates greater religious “diversity.” It is an illogical and divisive narrative that illustrates the irresponsibility and societal damage being done by mainstream media in our communities.
Less Religious Affiliation Is’Diversity’?
On December 9, the Salt Lake Tribune reported, “Salt Lake County’s population is now 48.91 percent Latter-day Saint, the lowest since at least the 1930s.” The article then plaudits at length about “religious diversification”:
“‘It has increased the diversity and the camaraderie and the ability of us to come together as a neighborhood, not a ward [LDS congregation],’ said Augenstein… Derek Miller grew up in Provo… He’s seen the neighborhood become more diverse. He’s seen two wards combine into one. And he’s seen the tension dissipate some. ‘With that increased diversity,’ he said, ‘comes this feeling that it doesn’t have to divide us.’… Morgan Lyon Cotti, a political scientist at the University of Utah, said the 2018 midterm elections show the clout an increasingly blue-tinged Salt Lake County can have… If the religious diversification continues to lead to a more liberal voting population, “that could have an impact on the state moving forward,” she said… The divide is particularly stark between Salt Lake County and its southern neighbor, conservative Utah County, but economic opportunities may change that, according to Miller, the Chamber president. He expects the growth of tech companies along the Point of the Mountain separating the two counties to spur even more religious diversification. That would reduce the cultural divide…”
(Salt Lake Tribune, 12/9/18)
Does smaller Latter-Day Saints population mean more religious diversification? I don’t see any evidence to support that assumption. Study after study shows American populations are becoming more religiously unaffiliated. A 2015 Pew poll shows younger millennials are 36% religiously unaffiliated, by far the dominant religious group. As a voting population, the religiously unaffiliated group is now almost twice as large as all other religious groups combined. You call that diversity? Compare that to the silent generation of the 1930’s where only 11% of the population was religiously unaffiliated and the other groups were much more equally matched. It looks to me like the silent generation of a century ago takes the prize for most religious diversity. When you have one category totally dominating the poll, which you have with the today’s millennial generation, do you call that “more diverse” or “less diverse?” Salt Lake Tribune needs to present the math that shows more of a variety of religious types in Salt Lake City, and they have not done so.
Well, an Associated Press article takes this “diversity” narrative to a further extreme. The opening sentence claims: “Fewer than half the residents of Salt Lake County belong to the Mormon church, according to new figures that illustrate how Utah’s largest county is becoming more religiously diverse.” Then they claim Salt Lake City “has long been more religiously diverse” than other Utah cities. Really? Where is the evidence for that?
Misquote – Then Associated Press takes a quote by Pamela Perlich of the University of Utah totally out of context : “The place is just becoming much more diverse.” In the Salt Lake Tribune article, Pamela Perlich says this in reference to “people from various racial or ethnic backgrounds,” not of religious affiliations, as Associated Press presents it. Two different issues.
Media’s Fuzzy Math
Next, Associated Press makes a demonstrably false claim: “Statewide, Mormons account for nearly 62 percent of Utah’s 3.1 million residents. That number is also inching down as the state’s healthy job market attracts non-Mormon newcomers from other places.” So Utah is at 62% “Mormon” and falling? Well, how can that be when Associated Press reported in 2007: “Residents of Utah who belong to the Mormon church make up 60.7 percent of the state’s population, the lowest share ever.” So over a decade ago, we were at 60% and falling, and now we are at 62% and falling? That’s some fuzzy math. Our numbers just keep falling and yet end up higher than before!
In their 2007 article, Associated Press remarked: “If the trend holds, Mormons will make up less than half of Utah’s population by 2030.” This echoes what the Salt Lake Tribune’s report that under half of Utah will be “Mormon” by 2030. Okay, let’s do a little math here. In order for the Latter-Day Saint population to go from 60.7% in 2007 to under 50% in 2030, it would have to decrease 0.48% each year, which would land it at 55.4% in 2018. Is it at 55.4% right now? Not even close. According to Associated Press, it is at nearly 62%. To go from 60.7% in 2007 to 62% in 2018, it would have to increase 0.12% each year, which would land the Latter-Day Saint population at 63% in 2030.
In 2012, the Standard-Examiner reported: ” Utah’s Mormon population has held steady for the past three years… About 62.2 percent of Utah residents were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2011, which is up a negligible amount from 62.1 percent in 2009 and 2010.” Then guess who they cite? Pamela Perlich and the Salt Lake Tribune!
In 2005, the Editor & Publisher reported the same number, 62%: “Within three years, the state will have its lowest share of Mormons since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began tallying its membership decades ago, according to estimates by The Salt Lake Tribune. If the trend persists, Mormons will no longer be a Utah majority by 2030, the paper said… The true percentage, according to 2004 numbers, is 62 percent, the paper reported.” We just keep getting this same number, 62%! And yet we keep getting told that the church population is decreasing and that the church will be a minority by the year 2030. How can that be?
Population Of Salt Lake City? – Salt Lake Tribune says they got the church population numbers from the “Utah-based faith” itself and compared it with “available records” of Salt Lake County. The problem is Salt Lake Tribune reports the population of Salt Lake County as 1,142,077 and when I go to the United States Census website, it says the county population is 1,135,649 for 2017. Where did that 1,142,077 figure come from? This figure shows up on a State and County Population Estimates report for Utah by the University of Utah. I have no reason to be skeptical of the University of Utah’s estimate (except that it is just an estimate). But I noticed that this study concludes that “Utah’s rapid growth over the past few years is moderating… Utah’s population growth slowed.” This would further cast doubt on the prediction that Latter-Day Saints will become a minority.
Immigration Issue – This report from the University of Utah claims “positive net migration contributed a larger than normal share of the state’s population growth as natural increase continues to decline.” In other words, more people are moving in and less people are having babies. Salt Lake Tribune claims: “the state’s hot job market has attracted new residents who are less likely to be members of the predominant faith.” I agree this likely is true. Many Utah residents are finding that many people are moving into the state from secular-dominated areas, such as California and western Washington. Some residents worry that these migrants have a hard time adjusting to the native culture and place demands that the residents conform to them.
Memories Of Nauvoo – This is what resident of Utah say they are worried about, and this worry really reflects the nation’s overall immigration struggle. We wish the mainstream media would focus more on this issue instead of the same platitudes every year about non-religious “diversity.” All we ever see is the same headline every year claiming “Mormons are now a minority.” Instead, why not talk more about the secular immigrants moving into Utah and the struggle to adjust? The word “migrant” or “immigrant” shows up only once in the Salt Lake Tribune story and zero times in the Associated Press article. Why? This is a very important issue, but all they ever talk about is the “diversity” of less Latter-Day Saints.
This is an especially important issue when you consider the history of the Mormon pioneers who founded the state of Utah. They fled from city to city under harrowing persecution until they arrived at a barren swamp in Missouri which they built into the city of Nauvoo. In only a few short years, Nauvoo went from 100% Latter-Day Saint to minority Latter-Day Saint. Flocks of immigrants of other faiths moved into Nauvoo, and the prophet Joseph Smith was murdered and Latter-Day Saints fled west to unexplored Utah under the threat of genocide. Don’t you think this might be a tad important when discussing immigration in Utah? We see shades of this tension and outright hostility in Salt Lake City swirling around the marijuana law and other issues that lead non-Latter-Day Saints to persecute the church, just like in Nauvoo. There are all kinds of protests in the streets, calls to “tax the church,” etc. Where will it lead? What will be the breaking point? It is unfortunate that the Salt Lake Tribune and Associated Press sweeps this history under the rug. Judging by the comments in Associated Press article on Yahoo News, history is repeating itself. Tensions are heating up and the mainstream media is only fanning the flames of division.
If tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of Latter-Day Saints moved in to San Francisco and became the largest religious demographic in that city, do you think the Salt Lake Tribune would be printing accolades about “diversity?” Or would they be complaining about “Mormons” erasing San Francisco’s homegrown culture? Would they applaud our “religious diversification” or would the call us “colonizers?” These are terms that the media have transformed into meaningless buzzwords, to the point where they could really be the same thing, depending on how it is framed. What if we started demanding Pioneer Day parades in San Francisco? What if church members were to scream the kind of vile bigotry against San Francisco that I see in the Yahoo News comments against Utah’s native culture? How would the Salt Lake Tribune report this?
When did the erasing of a native culture become a good thing?
Fewer than half the residents of Salt Lake County belong to the Mormon church, according to new figures that illustrate how Utah’s largest county is becoming more religiously diverse. https://t.co/Q3wWvlQDXU— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) December 16, 2018
Derogatory Label Of Church Members
The Salt Lake Tribune’s disrespectful attitude towards the church tells us all we need to know. It is as if the church’s name policy announcement never happened. Call us by our real name. That’s all we church members have asked for. “Mormon” is a derogatory label for the church which was invented by Antimormons. But both the Salt Lake Tribune and Associated Press label us as “Mormon” in their headlines. Again, zero awareness of church historical context and outright malfeasance for the church.
Associated Press, Los Angeles Tribune, and other mainstream media are copying the Salt Lake Tribune’s narrative, so this malfeasance which once was dismissed as the quarky nature of Utah’s local newspaper is becoming a real problem. The inherent negative bias is becoming a rallying cry for the non-religious group. Considering Democrats rate “Mormons” as their most disliked religious group, is it irresponsible for the mainstream media to cheer the immigration of non-religious Democrats into Latter-Day Saint communities as “diversity” and not explore the history, context, and community concerns to this massive change of culture. Many are concerned that the media is instead stoking the divide with incendiary articles that demonize the church and church members.
Do these journalists think the erasing of Utah’s religious culture is a good thing because it means more voters who vote the way they want? Why their odd definition of “diversity?” This is lazy reporting promotes group-think and tribalism, and lack of critical thought.