View PDF

Editor’s Note: This article has footnotes. To review them, please see the PDF below.

Introduction 

Establishing legitimacy is a fundamental process that is basic to social organization. All organizations intending to grow or continue to exist require widespread acceptance and some degree of congruence with the surrounding culture. In the months following the raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ (FLDS) ranch in Texas, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) began an initiative to distinguish itself from the many polygamous groups that have branched out of the Mormon trunk over the years. The formal initiative begun in June of 2008 appears to be a continuation of an earlier, informal effort, begun in April 2008, to distinguish between the different branches of Mormonism in a series of statements released by Church leaders following the raid.’ Both the formal and informal initiatives to distinguish among the different branches of Mor monism are good examples of an organization attempting to develop and maintain social legitimacy (i.e., widespread social approval), a crucial component of organizational survival and success. 

As part of the formal initiative, the LDS Church detailed some of the errors observed by researchers whom it employed to monitor media coverage. For instance, the LDS Church asserted that, “Russian and Mexican media outlets . . . incorrectly referred to the FLDS Church as being the LDS Church” and were also critical of the Agence France-Presse for running a picture of an LDS temple in a story on the Fundamentalist LDS Church. Elder Quentin L. Cook, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, argued that the media’s use of the word “Mormon” was confusing for the general public because it erroneously linked the LDS Church with the FLDS Church. Elder Cook also noted that members of the LDS Church were experiencing “fallout” from the raid on the FLDS; LDS missionaries and members were mistakenly associated with the FLDS and experienced mild persecution as a result. The LDS Church’s researchers studying media coverage of the raid reported that, of more than 15,000 articles about the event during the first month and a half of coverage, “approximately 5 percent of articles accurately reported on the distinction between the two faiths.” 

The perceived confusion resulting from the news coverage led the LDS Church to conduct a nationwide survey to determine just how much confusion existed between the two religious groups. The survey found that 91 percent of the 1,000 respondents had heard about the raid on the FLDS in Texas, and 36 percent believed the FLDS in Texas were part of the LDS Church headquartered in Utah. Twenty-nine percent of the survey respondents said the FLDS and LDS were not connected at all, while 44 percent were unsure to which religion the FLDS group in Texas belonged. 

These results, along with the previously reported confusion in the news media, prompted the LDS Church to mail letters to major media outlets encouraging clarification of the LDS/FLDS distinction. The LDS Church-employed researchers saw these combined initiatives as contributing to an improvement in the reporting. According to one news release, “After the Church began to push for more clarity, the media dramatically improved its reporting, with over 60% of articles accurately reporting on the distinction,” while a second news release also reported favorable reception of the letter and an improvement in coverage. 

The LDS Church’s public relations effort to clarify the differences among itself, the FLDS, and other polygamist groups was not received uncritically. The Church had applied in 2005 to trademark “Mormon”; and although its petition was denied, Elder Lance Wickman, who heads the LDS Church’s Legal Department, asserted in his letter to the media in June 2008 that the media should use “Mormon” exclusively to refer to the mainstream LDS Church. He specifically discouraged the use of “fundamentalist Mormon” in reference to groups advocating polygamy. Principle Voices Coalition, an organization representing fundamentalist and polygamist Mormon groups, responded with a denunciation, “We strenuously object to any efforts to deprive us and others of the freedom to name and describe ourselves by terms of our own choosing.”Principle Voices argued that they were entitled to call themselves whatever they liked. They also argue that “polygamist sects,” the term Wickman’s letter encouraged for fundamentalist Mormon groups, is not the term they prefer: “In the recent past, the Church has insisted that we instead be defined as ‘polygamous sects,’ even though most of us are not (and do not refer to ourselves as) polygamists.” They insisted they would call themselves “fundamentalist Mormons,” pointing out that the LDS Church itself had first used the term in referring to them. 

This article addresses two issues. The first is how the media depicted the state of Texas’s raid on the FLDS ranch and how it differentiated FLDS and LDS in those reports. The LDS Church’s assertion that there was a great deal of confusion in the reporting on this incident can be tested by posing an empirical question: Did major media outlets inaccurately conflate the FLDS with the LDS in their coverage of the raid in Texas? The first part of this article addresses that question. The second topic is the issue of labels, definitions, and legitimacy, particularly as they involve the use of the word “Mormon.” The LDS Church has staked a claim to the label “Mormon” and is now discouraging the use of that identification in the media to refer to any religious group other than itself. Apostle Quentin L. Cook has gone so far as to assert that “Mormons have nothing whatsoever to do with this polygamous sect in Texas.” We analyze this debate in the context of the particular concept of legitimacy. 

Empirical Test 

Before moving into a discussion of whether the media con fused the FLDS Church with the LDS Church in its coverage on the raid in Texas, we should explain why we felt a need to test the LDS Church’s assertion: “During the first month and a half [of news coverage of the FLDS raid in Texas], approximately 5 percent of articles accurately reported on the distinction between the two faiths [LDS and FLDS].”‘ As we followed the story in the media, both of us noticed that many of the stories were actually written by and propagated through the Associated Press and other aggregated news outlets (e.g., Reuters, Agence France-Press, etc.). We believed that this consolidation of news reporting among major media outlets would result in overlapping coverage, similar stories, and standard policies in distinguishing between the two religious groups. Additionally, previous research from the 1970s found that mainstream media coverage of Mormonism had grown more nuanced over the years, though it was not without its flaws. Hence, we hypothesized that the consolidation of news coverage will result in increasingly accurate distinctions between the LDS and FLDS. The hypothesis is readily falsifiable. If a detailed study of the coverage of the raid on the FLDS ranch in Texas showed substantial confusion between the LDS and FLDS, then our hypothesis would be shown to have been wrong. 

To investigate media confusion in distinguishing between the LDS and FLDS churches and to test our hypothesis, we conducted a systematic content analysis of news stories published by five major media outlets in the United States (the New York Times, Fox News, Cable News Network [CNN], Deseret News [Salt Lake City], and the Houston Chronicle) and eleven international media outlets (China Daily, the International Herald Tribune [France], New Zealand Herald, Mail and Guardian [South Africa], El Sol de Mexico and La Cronica de Hoy (Mexico), the Guardian [Manchester, United Kingdom], the Sun [London, United Kingdom], Ria [Russian News and Information Agency] Novosti [Moscow], Moscow Times, and the St. Petersburg Times [Russia]). Except for the two Mexican papers, all of these media outlets are in English. 

[Editor’s Note: For Table 1: Newspaper Circulation and Website Visitors, see pg. 69 in PDF below]

We included every news article on the raid published by these sixteen news sources on their websites between April 3, the day of the raid, and May 5 in our analysis. Thus, our analysis was of articles published before the LDS Church began its initiative to encourage media outlets to clarify the distinction between the two religious groups. We used two search terms to find articles: “Texas” and/or “polygamy.” We included only articles in which appeared both terms (“Texas” and “polygamy”) and which, therefore, were limited to the raid on the FLDS in Texas. To understand the influence of these papers’ online divisions, Table 1 presents visitor data for each of these sites. The data for the average monthly unique visitors come from either the websites themselves (usually included in a “media kit” for potential advertisers), from Nielsen Media, or from quantcast.com, a website that tracks such information. We have also included two additional figures. The Alexa “reach” calculation (Col. 3) is the percentage of internet users who visited that particular site monthly out of the estimated 1.4 billion internet users worldwide (www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) as calculated by alexa.com. Combined, these sixteen news websites reach somewhere between 47 million and 79 million people monthly. 

A methodological clarification regarding Fox News and Associated Press (AP) articles provides essential context. The Fox News website does not generally publish original news stories. It was quickly apparent to us that almost every Fox News website article about the FLDS in Texas was an Associated Press article. (Exceptions were transcripts of televised commentaries that had been posted to the website.) Rather than complicate the analysis by including the few transcripts from Fox News shows found on the website that were intermixed with actual news stories, we excluded the few original Fox News articles and analyzed only the Associated Press articles. Consequently, although the articles were published on the Fox News website and we have labeled them as Fox News articles, they are all actually produced by the Associated Press. 

The pervasiveness of Associated Press articles is noteworthy. Among the articles we examined in the U.S. media outlets were more than a dozen Associated Press articles that appeared in multiple news sources. Rather than reanalyze duplicates, we excluded them from the analysis. Because of the large number of AP articles on the Fox News site, most of the duplications involved Fox News and another source. In these cases, we discarded the duplicate at the other paper and retained the Fox News article, so that our file of Fox media was as complete as possible. Where duplicates did not involve Fox News, we randomly allotted the duplicates to the respective media outlets. Fourteen of the thirty-five articles that appeared on international media outlets’ sites were likewise Associated Press articles. In cases where it was unclear whether an article was an AP article or original, we counted it as original to that media source. Table 2 lists the total number of articles for each media outlet along with the number of AP articles and those from other press groups. 

[Editor’s Note: For Table 2: Associated Press and Other Press Group Representation in the Media, see PDF below, p. 71; for Table 3: Distinctions between FLDS and LDS in Newspapers, see PDF below, p. 72]

We read and analyzed a total of 145 articles, paying particular attention to the relationship depicted between the FLDS and the LDS churches. During the analysis, four groups of explicit relationships between the LDS and FLDS emerged. The most common characterization of their relationship was simply a note indicating that the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy and/or that it disavowed any relationship with the FLDS Church. We found fifty-one specific disavowals of relationships between the LDS and the FLDS in the articles read. (See Table 3.). Most disavowals of a connection between the two religions were similar to the following examples: 

The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon faith is officially known, renounced the practice of polygamy more than a century ago and is at pains to distance itself from breakaway factions that bless multiple marriages, often involving adolescent girls.

Both groups look back to Joseph Smith as their founder and first prophet. But the main branch of the faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, disavowed polygamy more than a century ago and excommunicates polygamists today.

The next most common characterization of the relationship between the LDS and FLDS, which occurred forty-six times, was some reference to “breaking away” (e.g., broke, break, breaking, breakaway, etc.), as illustrated in the following two quotations: 

… the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a 10,000-member sect that broke away from the Mormon Church in the 1930s after it banned polygamy.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints broke away from the Mormon church after the latter disavowed polygamy more than a century ago. 

In twenty-nine cases, some variation of “split” described the relationship between the LDS and FLDS, as the following two examples illustrate: 

It is one of several groups that split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, decades after it renounced polygamy in 1890.

Members of the sect have practiced “plural marriage,” as they call it, since they split more than a century ago from the mainstream Mormon church, which is based in Salt Lake City.

Two additional terms were used, though infrequently, to describe the LDS and FLDS as separate. A total of twelve times, “renegade” or “rogue” appeared as differentiating descriptors, “rogue” being particularly popular in CNN articles. For example: 

… a renegade Mormon sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Je sus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is under the sway of Jeffs, a self-proclaimed prophet. . .

The sect is a rogue branch of the Mormon church, which forbids nonbelievers from entering its temples. 

These 145 articles contained 138 explicit attempts to distinguish the LDS Church from the FLDS Church using the characterizations above. They occurred in eighty-one (56 percent) of the articles; twenty-eight of the articles used two or more of these characterizations. (See Table 3.) 

Of the 145 articles analyzed, sixty-three implicitly (though not explicitly) distinguished LDS from FLDS. All sixty-three in this group referred to the polygamist group in Texas as belonging to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or FLDS). Most of the articles that did not make the distinction explicit were original to the LDS-owned Deseret News, whose readers were already presumably familiar with the difference.

Of the 145 articles analyzed, only one confused the two religions, an opinion column in El Sol de Mexico. It contained a single sentence on the Texas polygamist group buried more than halfway down the page: “En Texas, Estados Unidos, existe una iglesia donde se practica la poligamia, es decir, un hombre tiene varias mujeres de manera autorizada por esa Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Ultimos Dias” (In Texas, in the United States, there exists a church where they practice polygamy, which is to say, a man has various wives in the manner that is authorized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The writer incorrectly identified the polygamous group as LDS rather than FLDS, denounces it as un-Christian, and briefly critiques polygamy. This is the sole example from the 145 articles we read that explicitly misidentified the FLDS as LDS, representing 0.6 percent of our sample.

There are two important limitations to this analysis. One of us speaks Spanish, but we were otherwise confined to English language papers. Media in other languages may have contained egregious errors; but our sample, confined to English and Spanish papers missed those errors. This possibility is heightened by the fact that “fundamentalist” is not only part of the FLDS Church’s name, but also an adjective commonly used to describe conservative religious groups. Such a nuance may be lost in translation by people without sufficient knowledge of the groups involved. However, it is also worth noting that many of the newspapers in non-English speaking countries that were considered for inclusion in this study had no coverage of the raid on the FLDS in Texas at all. This was true of several English-language papers published in Mexico and Russia that we examined. This pattern suggests that, outside the United States, relatively few people read or heard about the Texas raid. More extensive analysis would be necessary to confirm this possibility. 

A second limitation is the fact that our analyses involved only internet editions of news media, most of which have readerships numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Of course, such news sources may differ from other newspapers. Our data would not capture differences between internet and print editions or whether print-only newspapers reflect a higher rate of confusion between LDS and FLDS churches. 

Definitional Issue 

The second topic raised in the LDS Church’s effort to differentiate itself from the FLDS Church is the issue of labels, definitions, and legitimacy. The LDS Church has staked a claim to the label “Mormon” and is now discouraging the use of that term in the media to refer to any religious group other than itself. Since the LDS Church has made strenuous attempts to discourage “Mormon Church” as an identifying label in the past/this change represents an intriguing policy switch. The Principle Voices Coalition, an organization committed to educating the general public about and defending “Fundamentalist Mormon culture,” argues that the LDS Church’s attempts to control the media’s use of the term “Mormon” is misguided. The coalition claims the right to use “Mormon” to refer to itself and participants in polygamy, although its preferred term is “Fundamentalist Mormon.” 

In addition to claiming the label of “Mormon” as an exclusive reference to LDS Church members, the LDS Church has asserted that the media have used “Mormon” in covering the raid on the FLDS ranch in Texas in ways that are potentially confusing to readers. According to Deseret News publisher Joseph Cannon, “Much of this confusion comes from misapplying the name Mormon, as in ‘fundamentalist Mormon’ or ‘Mormon polygamist.’ The LDS Church has gone to great lengths to protect the name Mormon.” 

At issue here are really two different definitions of “Mor mon.” Unless the two religious groups recognize these definitions, they will continue to argue past each other. Cannon is correct in stating that “Mormon” is used in various ways in the media, but a careful reading of our 145 articles reveals two dominant uses of the label. 

Its first use is as a specific reference to the LDS Church. This is done by either coupling “Mormon” with “mainstream” or with “Church”: 

The FLDS is not associated with the mainstream Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.’ 

The children were taken from the 1,691-acre Yearning for Zion ranch operated by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which long ago broke away from the mainstream Mormon Church: 

In the articles we analyzed, “mainstream Mormon” occurred twenty-six times while “Mormon Church” occurred sixty-two times. Generally speaking, no confusion between the LDS and FLDS churches resulted; clearly, the FLDS were being contrasted with another religion that was not the FLDS. 

The second way we found “Mormon” being used was as a reference to any group that has roots in the religion founded by Joseph Smith in the 1830s. Thus, any religion that traces itself back to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon can call itself a “Mormon” religion. This use of the term is reflected in scholarly writing about the various sects that have followed from Joseph Smith as well as in scholarship about Mormonism and polygamy. 

This understanding of the label was quite common in our 145-article sample. It was also generally clear what this label meant, but, admittedly, it requires understanding that there is not a single religious body descended from Joseph Smith but many religious groups that claim to be descendants of Smith’s restoration. It is in this sense that “Mormon” is coupled with “fundamentalist,” as in “fundamentalist Mormon.” For example, the New York Times began one article: “For years, the veiled world behind the doors of a fundamentalist Mormon polygamist temple tantalized local imaginations in the Hill Country south of here.” From this example and others like it, it would be difficult to argue that “Mormon” is ambiguous. It is obviously referring specifically to the FLDS group in Texas. Mormon is also coupled with “group” in several articles in this same sense: “The 10,000-member Mormon group is led by Warren Jeffs, who was convicted in Utah last year on two counts of accomplice to rape.” 

In some instances, however, it is less obvious which definition of “Mormon” is being used. For example, when a CNN story claimed that the FLDS are an “offshoot,” it is unclear exactly what is meant: “The Fundamental [sic] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which owns the ranch, is a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy.” 

In this phrasing, “Mormon” could refer to the LDS Church, as in: “The FLDS are an offshoot of the LDS Church,” which is, technically, true. It could also refer to the larger group of Mormon religions that trace their roots to Joseph Smith, as in: “The FLDS are an offshoot of the Mormon religion founded by Joseph Smith in 1830.” This broader use of the term is consistent with scholars’ usage of “Mormon.” This same ambiguity is also present in references to the FLDS as “a renegade Mormon sect” and “a rogue Mormon sect.” In the debate over definitions, it appears that the LDS Church wants “Mormon” to refer exclusively to itself while the FLDS employ a broader definition. The media, however, employ both. 

In its style guide, posted on its website as a media reference, the LDS Church requests that news media use either the full name of the religion, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” or one of two alternatives, “The Church,” or “The Church of Jesus Christ.” The names for the LDS Church used most frequently in the articles we analyzed were “Mormon Church” (sixty-two times) or the full name: “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (thirty-six times). We found no occurrences of “The Church of Jesus Christ” that did not also include “of Latter-day Saints.” Two news articles used “the church,” but only after specifically naming the “FLDS” and in a context that makes it clear which group it is referring to: “When all other efforts to open the temple failed, about 57 men from the church stood in a circle around the building and watched as a SWAT team broke down the doors.” 

The LDS Church requests that it not be referred to as “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church,” or “the Church of Latter-day Saints.” As noted above, dozens of articles refer to the LDS as the “Mormon Church.” Additionally, referring to the “LDS Church” is also common but primarily in the Deseret News. Twenty-eight of its articles used “LDS Church.” One Associated Press article also used that phrase. None of the other newspapers did, though many used “FLDS” in reference to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (100 instances). The Deseret News also used “LDS” thirty times as an adjective (e.g., “LDS apostle lists differences with FLDS sect” and “Even when early LDS leaders were prosecuted for polygamy in the 1880s, Hales said, ‘they weren’t rounding up the wagons. It was not the same behavior you see among the FLDS.'”). Finally, no articles used the term “Church of Latter-day Saints,” but three articles referred to the “Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints.” 

While it can be argued that there is some confusion in several articles over precisely what is meant by the term “Mormon,” in no case that we observed was “Mormon” so ambiguous as to lead an informed reader to believe that FLDS members are part of the LDS Church. It is, of course, possible that uninformed readers could draw this inference. However, it is also the case that people generally interpret what they read in the media in ways that reinforce their existing biases. In the words of Peter Wason, who devoted much of his career to studying people’s bias toward confirming what they believe, “Ordinary people evade facts, become inconsistent, or systematically defend themselves against the threat of new information relevant to the issue.” Despite explicit at tempts to distinguish between the two groups, an uninformed reader, who believes that members of the LDS Church practice polygamy and who sees a news story that mentions “polygamy” or “Mormonism” in the context of the FLDS raid in Texas, is unlikely to devote sufficient cognitive resources to lead to a change in the belief. Such changes will occur most effectively with personal interactions with Mormons who dispel the inaccurate belief. It is easier to ignore or discount media contacts than personal experiences with members of a marginalized group. Positive emotional experiences more effectively dispel such misconceptions and overcome interpersonal bias. 

Legitimacy 

We believe that what is really at play in the debate over the use of “Mormon” is legitimacy. Legitimacy is defined in various ways; but in reference to organizations (as opposed to individuals or beliefs), it generally refers to the organization’s cultural acceptance or “taken-for-granted” status. To an organization, legitimacy is important because it translates into social acceptance, which, in turn, means a reduction in persecution and unfavorable treatment.

While legitimacy is not widely used in the sociology of religion literature, the application as a framework in this context does have some precedent. Liston Pope, in his early work on social class and religion, described how mainline churches in Gastonia, North Carolina, were advocates of the status quo (thanks to their ties to the town’s corporate elite) and therefore served as powerful sources of legitimation in the community. In contrast to the mainline religions in Gastonia, the small and newer Holiness and Pentecostal religions were generally seen as less legitimate and as challengers of the status quo. While this case was later seen more as an exception than the rule, in Gastonia it was the less legitimate, newer religions that fought for workers’ rights while the mainline churches sided with their principal benefactors, the heads of corporations, in an economic dispute. Pope’s example illustrates the importance of legitimacy, both for economic power struggles and for the institutional success of religions. 

Sociologist of religion Mark Chaves also uses a legitimacy framework in interpreting religious change over time. He examines the ordination of women in Protestant and Catholic churches in the United States and argues that legitimacy competes with doctrinal orthodoxy in that debate. A growing socio-cultural acceptance of women as religious leaders has spread throughout U.S. culture, following multiple women’s rights movements and general changes in social equality. The increasing acceptance of female ordination has pressured some religions to allow the ordination of women in order to be seen as “legitimate” institutions. What follows (or what accompanies) such a transformation is a reinterpretation of scripture and doctrine to allow for women’s ordinations. Competing with the organizational desire for legitimacy in Chaves’s framework is an organizational connection to tradition and doctrinal orthodoxy. Chaves argues that the religions that have not allowed female ordination accept a resulting decrease in socio-cultural legitimacy to maintain ties to their history and doctrinal interpretations of scripture. 

It is also possible to view the legitimacy issue as an extension of both the classic church-sect typology and as part of the religious economies model outlined by Stark and Finke. In Stark and Finke’s model, religions and societal religiosity cycle over time; large, legitimate churches lose their appeal and motivation, a decline that opens the religious marketplace to smaller, more motivated competitors (sects and cults). The smaller sects and cults, with their higher levels of motivation, eventually become the societal churches, and the cycle repeats. Inherent in this model, though not generally discussed by its advocates, is the process of legitimation: In order to become widely accepted and to grow, the newer sects and cults must legitimize to some degree or remain too esoteric to have broad appeal. Thus, legitimacy is an essential, though underdiscussed, element of the new paradigm in the sociology of religion. Armand Mauss describes the legitimation of these sects and cults as a process of “assimilation” or “accommodation,” which he phrases as a “quest for respectability.” His model of religious change falls into the new paradigm approach of Stark and Finke mentioned above. 

Rather than discuss religious accommodation as an issue of legitimacy, many sociologists of religion have instead chosen a more ambiguous approach, discussing this idea generally as an issue of “tension.” In the early 1970s, Dean Kelley noted that conservative Christian religions in the United States were experiencing growth while mainline Protestant religions were not. Kelley’s finding was surprising, considering the long-standing supremacy of mainline Protestant religions in the U.S. religious marketplace. To account for this finding, Kelley proposed that religions in “tension” with their surrounding culture were growing while those that maintained the status quo were not. 

The idea of “tension” is problematic for several reasons. First, the concept seems straightforward but is actually ill defined. What is meant by tension? Mauss describes this tension as “conspicuously rejecting the surrounding society and flexing the muscles of militancy,” which leads to “disrepute” and “repression.” Kelley describes his ideal type “strong” church as having the following characteristics: 

In our model religious group, we could expect such firm adherence of members to the group’s beliefs that they would be willing to suffer persecution, to sacrifice status, possessions, safety, and life it- self for the organization, its convictions, its goals. We would see wholehearted commitment on the part of members, each individual’s goals being highly or wholly identified with—or derived from—those of the group, so that a shoulder-to-shoulder solidarity would enable it to withstand all onslaughts from without and avoid betrayal from within. Moreover, members would willingly and fully submit themselves to the discipline of the group, obeying the decisions of the leadership without cavil and accepting punishment for infractions without resentment, considering any sanction preferable to being expelled. Lastly, the model religious organization would be marked by an irrepressible missionary zeal, an eagerness to tell the Good News to others, with warmth and confidence and winsome- ness in the telling, refusing to be silenced even by repression or persecution. 

These descriptions of “tension” are, in fact, just the opposite of legitimacy. Tension, then, is illegitimacy (or, at least, less legitimacy). Yet, based on the work of Cathryn Johnson and her associates and others on nonprofits and corporations, illegitimacy is not conducive to institutional success. Either religions somehow succeed differently than corporations, or the “tension” argument is different for religions and corporations. 

Second, if tension is the key to religious success, then the relativity of tension must be taken into account. Kelley highlighted the sudden rapid growth of conservative Christian religions in the United States, but they are not the only religions in tension with the status quo, since tension has to be measured locally, not nationally. Thus, if tension is the key, in conservative regions of the United States, extremely conservative and relatively liberal religions should grow rapidly. For example, the United Church of Christ and Jehovah’s Witnesses should both grow rapidly in rural Georgia; but that is not happening. In short, “tension,” as a theoretical construct explaining religious growth, is too ambiguous to be compelling. 

Third, Kelley and others, including Mauss, assert that religion must maintain an “optimum” level of tension in order to grow. Mauss describes two factors that influence religious accommodation: (1) acceptance and respectability, and (2) unique identity. He argues that religions must find the right balance between these two factors. With too little tension, a religion becomes the status quo; with too much, it becomes an extremist group. Yet just what level of tension is optimal remains unclear. 

Having outlined the problems with the “tension” model, which forms the foundation of the religious economies model, we describe our model of religious growth and contrast it to Mauss’s. Figure 1 delineates a general model of corporate growth based primarily on responding to consumer demands. The goal of corporations is to increase profits and/or market share. Increasing profits requires an accurate understanding of consumer demand and the product being sold; thus, both must be evaluated. Corporations regularly engage in consumer research to better understand not only what consumers want but also how consumers view their product. Corporations then lay out a plan that finds a balance between two competing approaches: increasing the product’s legitimacy (by making it more widely accepted) or increasing the product’s niche appeal (by focusing on its differences from competing products). Each plan corresponds to a process or action: Increased legitimacy leads to assimilation and accommodation (Mauss’s terms) while increased niche appeal leads to differentiation. Those processes are implemented and evaluated in light of the primary goal—increased profits. This approach is cyclical, repeated over time. 

An example may help illustrate this idea. The Subway restaurant chain competes with other fast food restaurants for profits and market share. Let’s assume that Subway conducts market research and finds two competing interests among potential consumers in the United States: (1) large amounts of food for little money, and (2) healthy, low-calorie food for the health-conscious. As getting a good buy (i.e., more for less) is a widely held American value, offering larger sandwiches at a low price will increase Subway’s legitimacy in the American marketplace. This approach represents a process of assimilation and accommodation to the broad cultural norm of getting a good buy. However, a niche market simultaneously exists of consumers who want healthy food options and are willing to pay more to get them. If Subway markets itself as a “healthy” fast food restaurant, and “healthy” is associated in consumers’ minds as “more expensive,” then Subway risks decreasing its legitimacy generally but increasing its niche appeal. If it chooses the niche appeal approach, it undergoes a process of differentiation, becoming less legitimate in the process. Of course, the smart corporation engages in a simultaneous campaign—pushing both legitimacy and niche appeal by using targeted advertising. 

[Editor’s Note: For Figure 1: A Corporate Model of Growth, see PDF below, p. 83]

In the business world, Johnson & Johnson faced a legitimacy crisis in the 1980s when seven people died from cyanide-laced Tylenol. Prior to the poisoning, Tylenol had a 30 percent share of the pain reliever market. As a result of the poisoning, Tylenol lost almost all legitimacy in the public eye and most of its market share. However, Johnson & Johnson’s well-managed public relations campaign saved the product from complete disaster. The company quickly recalled all the product at a cost of over $100 million, researched the incident, and found that the poisoning was deliberate sabotage and not the result of the company’s carelessness. It responded with new technology (tamper-proof seals) for its product that immediately became industry standard. Just as importantly, Johnson & Johnson made all of these efforts public and worked closely with the media throughout this period. When the product was reintroduced to the market, Tylenol gained “a leading market position” and today is “one of the most popular analgesics on store shelves and a trusted brand.” Its ability to increase its legitimacy was a vital component of its corporate success. 

Two religious examples of the importance of balancing legitimacy with niche market appeal come from Roman Catholicism in America. William D’Antonio and his colleagues found that rates of religious giving dropped the most among Roman Catholics who had adopted liberal views on sexual issues after Vatican II. Roman Catholicism’s catering to the niche of birth control opponents translated into lower donations from its more liberal members. Likewise, the scandals about child sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests have resulted in lower donations to the Catholic Church. The reduced legitimacy of the religion made it less appealing to “consumers.” 

Figure 2 illustrates our interpretation of Mauss’s model of religious growth, which is the corporate model combined with the religious economies model. Unlike corporations, religions have as their primary goal increased membership (which can also be seen as increased market share). Religions are not driven by increased profits but rather increased memberships. Religions, like corporations, evaluate consumer demand and their product, changing each based upon the goal of increasing membership. For example, allowing blacks the priesthood could be seen as product innovation within Mormonism while modifying temple garments and clarifying questions to be asked in temple recommend interviews could be seen as responding to consumer demand. In Mauss’s model, the plan is “optimum tension” with the surrounding society, which offers, as the two primary dynamics, either assimilation or retrenchment. Yet, as noted above, optimum tension is poorly defined and relative; furthermore, the connection between optimum tension and increased membership is unclear. 

[Editor’s Note: For Figure 2: Religious Growth, Mauss’s (1944) Model, see PDF below, p. 85]

Figure 3 is our proposed model. The only difference between our proposed model and the corporate model is that religions are interested in increased membership, not profit. Otherwise, the approaches to growth are identical. Our model contrasts with Mauss’s in that we replace “optimum tension” with the competing interests that underlie that optimum tension—increased legitimacy and increased niche appeal. We also refer to the process by which niche appeal is increased as “differentiation” rather than “retrenchment.” In the economic sense, “retrenchment” means cutting operations and downsizing, which is not our connotation. In the religious sense, “retrenchment” does refer to a reversal of assimilation (delegitimization), but it also includes an inherent conservatism, which may not be the religion’s niche appeal. As our model applies to religions generally and not just Mormonism or other conservative religions, we opted for “differentiation,” which implies a process of distinguishing one “product” from another. In our model, then, religions grow by being somewhat legitimate (not illegitimate) but simultaneously by illustrating how their “product” is better than another, particularly for specific consumers. In many respects, our model is very similar to those of Mauss and Chaves. Where we differ is in proposing a clearer explanation of the underlying forces that may cause “tension” between a religion and the surrounding society. But it is not the “tension” that makes a religion attractive, leading in turn to growth; it is the combination of legitimacy and market appeal. Market appeal is contingent upon some tension; but as Mauss notes, that tension is finely tuned. It cannot be either too much or too little. 

[Editor’s Note: For Figure 3: religious Growth, Legitimacy Model, see PDF below, p. 86]

This model explains the decline of the mainline religions by arguing that they focused too much on legitimacy—they became the status quo—while neglecting niche appeal (they no longer required even formal membership to reap the rewards of participation). Likewise, this model also explains the growth of conservative Christian religions after 1960. First, consumer demands changed, meaning that both legitimacy and consumer appeal (the niche) changed. The new definition of legitimacy favored conservative religions. Simultaneously, conservative religions had not lost their niche appeal, which made them attractive alternatives to the mainline religions. 

Raising the issue of organizational legitimacy for Mormon ism, it is worth noting that institutions and organizations go through a four-stage process to become legitimate: (1) innovation to address some need, goal, or desire at the local level; (2) local validation by local actors, meaning that the organization is construed as consonant with the widely accepted cultural framework of beliefs, values, and norms in the local environment where it is originally created; (3) the diffusion throughout the local context of the view that the organization is consonant with the broader culture; and (4) diffusion throughout the broader society of the view that the organization is consonant with it—it is, in fact, becoming part of the culture. Once an organization reaches the fourth stage, it is considered legitimate and part of the society’s shared culture. 

This article’s goal is not to present a detailed historical discussion of the LDS Church’s legitimation but rather to discuss its modern struggle for legitimacy in the context of challenges from schismatic groups, like the FLDS Church. The LDS Church is now 179 years old, dated from its founding in 1830—165 years if dated from Joseph Smith’s death in 1844. Most observers consider it to be a “legitimate” organization—generally consonant with societal values. In contrast, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have accommodated very little to societal values. However, legitimacy is not a destination; it is a never-ending struggle. Once legitimacy is achieved, the struggle for legitimacy often turns into a struggle with competitors. Thus, the LDS Church cannot be complacent about the legitimacy it has achieved. Instead, it must work to maintain its legitimacy, continuing to reinforce its image in the public mind that it is consonant with society’s beliefs and values. Ironically, however, organizational success requires that the religion simultaneously points out its differences from other religions to maintain its niche appeal. (See Figure 3.) 

One illustration of how Mormonism struggles with the issue of legitimacy in the context of other religions (and not in the context of American society in general) is the continued debate over whether the LDS Church is Christian. It has not been welcomed into the family of “Christian” religions by many other Christian churches. Given the strong influence of Christianity on U.S. and Western culture, this issue is not a minor one. Like the debate over the definition of “Mormon,” legitimacy in this context hinges on definitions. The LDS Church defines as “Christian” anyone who worships Jesus Christ as divine. Evangelical Protestants, however, argue that “true” Christians adhere to traditional Trinitarian concepts (the embodiment of the Father and Jesus Christ), do not accept extra-biblical scriptures (Book of Mormon), and do not view God as progressing over time but rather as eternally perfect (the plan of salvation). This definition excludes the LDS Church on all three counts. The LDS Church, in response, has collaborated with evangelical Protestants and Catholics on political issues, emphasized “Jesus Christ” in its logo, reiterated repeatedly that it is Christian in virtually every general conference and other settings, and worked to redefine the definition of what it means to be Christian. All of these responses are attempts to increase Mormon legitimacy as a Christian religion. However, the LDS Church maintains beliefs that distinguish it from conservative Protestantism, which help it maintain its niche appeal. Thus, the LDS Church is trying to maintain a successful balance between legitimacy and niche appeal, emphasizing the elements shared with more legitimated Christianity, while simultaneously stressing Mormonism’s differences from that Christianity. 

The LDS Church’s efforts to be accepted as a legitimate “Christian” religion illustrate the importance of labels in struggles over legitimacy. If the LDS Church gains widespread acceptance as “Christian,” this relabeling will increase its organizational legitimacy, while simultaneously decreasing persecution and criticism. Lythgoe notes the decline in persecution of the LDS Church in the 1950s due to its favorable image in the media: “Mormons have become accustomed to favorable publicity through the comfortable image projected in the fifties; it was a welcome change from an extensive background of persecution.” At the same time, churches that do not consider the LDS (and other Mormons) “Christian” have a vested interest in keeping Mormonism outside the “Christian” family as they recognize that allowing the LDS Church into that group will: (1) give Latter-day Saints the legitimacy that, comes with being Christian in U.S. society, and (2) reduce their own legitimacy as long-standing members of the Christian fold by allowing in a religion that is, from their perspective, clearly different. 

Much like the LDS Church’s struggle to be considered Christian, its active intervention to differentiate it in the public mind from the FLDS Church and other fundamentalist Mormons can best be understood as a continued effort to maintain its legitimacy. Since the mid-nineteenth century, when the Mormon practice of polygamy and slavery were labeled by the Republican Party as the “twin relics of barbarism,” polygamy has impeded Mormonism’s efforts toward legitimacy in the broader culture. A complete recounting of this history is beyond the scope of this paper, but a brief summary is instructive. Polygamy stirred anti-Mormon sentiment in Nauvoo, which eventually contributed to the martyrdom of Joseph Smith and the LDS migration westward. Intensifying federal pressure disincorporated the Church, created administrative chaos by keeping leaders on the underground, inflicted economic and psychological suffering on families by jailing thousands of fathers, threatened to confiscate the temple, and persistently withheld statehood with its promise of greater autonomy. Church president Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto in September 1890, withdrawing the Church’s support for new plural marriages and signaling the beginning of a permanent retreat from the practice. After the disbanding of the Mormon People’s Party and the dissolution of its cooperative economic system, statehood followed in 1896. Considerable confusion reigned about whether the Manifesto should be interpreted to include the continuation of formerly contracted plural marriages. Perhaps more importantly, new plural marriages authorized by General Authorities and Joseph F. Smith’s continued cohabitation with his own plural wives contributed to the confusing state of affairs. 

When Apostle Reed Smoot was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1902, the Church came under close scrutiny and accusations of bad faith. President Joseph F. Smith issued a “Second Manifesto” in 1904, threatening to take action against polygamists. In 1905, the Church dropped from the Twelve and disciplined two apostles who had been advocating and performing plural marriages. A series of such actions and public declarations over the next decade firmly moved the LDS Church away from its polygamist past and away from those who advocated or engaged in polygamy. Before he died in 1918, President Joseph F. Smith had issued nine public statements against polygamy and instructed stake presidents to bring polygamists before Church courts. In 1933 an “official statement” on polygamy (the “Final Manifesto”) was printed in the Deseret News to remove credibility from some polygamists who claimed that the Church continued to secretly endorse polygamy. Two years later, the Church guided a bill through the state legislature upgrading polygamy from a misdemeanor to a felony. That same year, members of the Zion Park Stake in southern Utah were forced to take a loyalty oath declaring their support for the LDS Church First Presidency and denouncing plural marriage; members who refused were excommunicated. When Utah government officials raided the polygamists of Short Creek, the local stake president offered his assistance in the prosecutions. Anti-polygamy raids followed in 1944 and 1953. Also during this period, J. Reuben Clark, a counselor in the First Presidency, and Apostle Melvin J. Ballard spearheaded efforts to reduce polygamy in Utah and the intermountain West, highlighting the distinction between LDS Mormons and polygamist Mormons. Following the 1944 raid, Elder Mark E. Petersen wrote a letter to the UPI news service distinguishing between the LDS Church and polygamists and stressing LDS cooperation with government efforts to eliminate polygamy. Governor Ernest Pyle of Arizona said of the 1953 raid, “We didn’t make a single move that we didn’t clear with the Council of the Twelve. They were one thousand percent cooperative, a hundred percent behind it.” Excommunication of polygamists has continued; but polygamists with Mormon roots remain committed to living “the principle,” which they believe the LDS Church discontinued only for reasons of political expediency. 

By 1950 LDS Church leaders largely ignored polygamy publicly, while continuing quietly to excommunicate those who confessed to engaging in polygamy or against whom they had evidence. Except when polygamy captures media attention, this policy seems to have persisted in Utah. Polygamy is downplayed within the Church as well, despite the fact that the earthly practice was “discontinued” rather than “repudiated.” For instance, although references to polygamy were omitted from the 1998 manual of Brigham Young’s teachings used in Melchezidek Priesthood and Relief Society classes, “the original spelling and punctuation have been preserved,” apparently “to convey a sense of historical accuracy to altered texts.” 

If the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints, who are not seen as consonant with the broader culture due to their reclusiveness, polygamy, and other esoteric practices and beliefs,’ are associated with—or confused with—the Latter-day Saints, this effect would damage the legitimacy the LDS Church has worked so hard to develop. In its effort to differentiate itself from the FLDS, the LDS Church “reiterates that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any groups practicing polygamy.” This claim, of course, ignores the groups’ shared heritage in favor of focusing on their current views regarding contemporary polygamy. Joe Cannon, publisher of the Deseret News, maintains that the LDS and FLDS are “utterly different in . . . beliefs and practices.” This assertion is also not entirely accurate, as both groups hold the Book of Mormon and other texts to be scripture and share a number of beliefs that distinguish them from historic Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant beliefs (their niche appeal). But assertions that the LDS and FLDS are distinct, though hyperbolic, are understandable in the context of a search for legitimacy. Both Fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Mormons seek to enhance their legitimacy. Fundamentalist Mormons do so by emphasizing their “Mormonness” and non-fundamentalist Mormons by emphasizing their “Christianness.” Simultaneously, both are trying to retain their niche appeal. 

The LDS Church has also tried to show its consonance with the broader culture by releasing videos and news stories about members of its faith in Texas who are well-known public figures and, of course, quite “normal.” Another illustration of the LDS Church’s striving for consonance with the broader culture can be seen in the Public Affairs’ claim that it is unfair for the FLDS to use the LDS Church’s legitimacy: “To any average observer, it doesn’t seem fair or reasonable for a comparatively small religious group to adopt the full name of another well-established church after more than a century and a half.” 

The assertion that this is an issue of legitimacy is not lost on LDS leaders. They apparently believe that the FLDS and other fundamentalist Mormons use the label “Mormon” specifically for its legitimacy, commenting, “This [use] is perfectly understandable from the standpoint of seeking the religious legitimacy that the word ‘Mormon’ grants.” The publisher of the Deseret News has also framed the issue as the FLDS causing damage to the LDS “brand.” The LDS Church also draws on sources outside the boundaries of the organization to illustrate its legitimacy by arguing that the Associated Press’s style guide agrees with the LDS Church on the usage of the word “Mormon,” even though it seems likely that the Associated Press consulted the Church on its preference in compiling its guide. The appearance of consensus on the correct application of “Mormon” assumes the status of an objective social reality or social fact, which bolsters the arguments of the LDS Church. 

That the LDS Church has obtained legitimacy status also gives it significant advantages in this debate. As a legitimated organization, the broader culture turns to the LDS Church when challengers like the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints arise. As a result, the LDS Church has the power to mold the media representation of the challenging institutions. If the frequency with which the media used “polygamist sects”—the term the LDS Church prefers in referring to the FLDS and other polygamist groups—is an indication of effectiveness, then the LDS Church has been particularly successful. “Polygamist sect” appeared more than thirty times in the articles we read, and “sect” appears in 121 of the 145 articles, despite the fact that fundamentalist Mormons prefer not to use “polygamist.” 

Finally, for their part, polygamist Mormons recognize their marginal status and object to the public fascination with sexual aspects of the polygamist lifestyle, which effectively emphasizes their illegitimacy. It also is important to recognize that, although public attention has focused on the FLDS Church, most polygamous Mormons are affiliated with other groups or with no group at all and that they represent a range of perspectives on such matters as the ease with which women can obtain a divorce and the minimal age at which females may marry. 

A final issue is worth mentioning here. In 1998, D. Michael Quinn suggested that the LDS Church would move toward allowing Africans who practice polygamy to be baptized. Quinn based his argument on the idea that Mormonism’s overriding goal is growth. If such a policy change were to occur, suggests Quinn, many fundamentalist Mormons in the United States would want to reaffiliate with the LDS Church. 

This hypothesis actually provides a test for the model of religious growth we propose. If we are correct that legitimacy plays an important role in religious growth, then it makes sense that the LDS Church would continue to forbid membership to African polygamists to maintain its American legitimacy. Quinn is right in asserting that the admission of African polygamists would cause turmoil, “[confusing] the church’s policy toward illegal polygamy in the United States,” but it would also call into question the socio-cultural legitimacy of the institution relative to U.S. culture. Just under half of all Mormons live in the United States and Canada, and North America is the primary source of tithing revenue. Thus, from an organizational perspective, it makes very little sense to introduce changes that would cause a challenge to organizational legitimacy. We argue that the only way the LDS Church will reinstate the practice of polygamy is if polygamist lifestyles become widespread and legitimate family forms in the United States, which is unlikely for the foreseeable future. Until then, we should expect the LDS Church to continue to distance itself from polygamists to maintain its organizational legitimacy. 

Conclusions 

The arrest and prosecution of Warren Jeffs and the raid on the FLDS in Texas drew enough media attention that the LDS Church felt it necessary to protect its legitimacy by criticizing the media coverage for not being clear in distinguishing between the LDS and FLDS and to reassert its distinctiveness from fundamentalist Mormons. This paper tested the assertion that the media, in covering the Texas FLDS raid, confused the LDS and FLDS churches by analyzing 145 Spanish- and English-language articles from U.S. and international newspapers. In this sample, eighty-one explicitly distinguished between the two churches, sixty-three implicitly distinguished between them, and only one confused the two. 

The LDS Church has also, as a result of the news coverage of the Texas raid on the FLDS ranch, reasserted its claim to the label of “Mormon” from which it tried to distance itself in the past. The rationale for doing so is best understood as an issue of legitimacy. The LDS Church is engaged in a continuous struggle between legitimization—being consonant with the broader culture—and maintaining its peculiarity or niche appeal to distinguish itself from religious competitors. Any association with polygamous groups or fundamentalist Mormon groups brings that legitimacy into question. Thus, the LDS Church has engaged in a public relations campaign to differentiate itself and its members from the FLDS to maintain its legitimacy. 

This paper detailed the two definitions of the label “Mormon” used by the media. Until an alternative label for religions that trace their ancestry back to Joseph Smith is proposed and widely accepted, it is likely that the label “Mormon” will continue to be used to refer to all such groups. While introducing a small amount of confusion for the uninformed reader, the use of that label does reflect the reality of a shared history and many shared beliefs. Despite the efforts of the LDS Church to claim “Mormon” as its own, the fight over “Mormon” will continue for the foreseeable future.