Why is Utahso un-healthy for non-Mormons?
Some unintended conclusions from the apologetic LDS press
Introduction
The last decade has seen an increase in the frequency and acceptance of statistical studies claiming a positive correlation between religious activity and life expectancy as well as other measures of good health. A recent contribution to this literature is an article by Ray M. Merrill, published in Demographic Research, Vol. 10, article 3, 12 March 2004. This is a peer-reviewed online journal, found at www.demographic-research.org. The title of Dr. Merrill�s paper is Descriptive Findings Life Expectancy among LDS and Non-LDS in Utah.
Merrill�s paper presents statistical data showing that Utah members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) live longer than non-Mormon Utah citizens. Mormons have a dietary rule against smoking, but even when corrected for this factor, Utah Mormons maintain their advantage over non-Mormon Utahns with respect to life expectancy.
Merrill attributes this difference in life expectancy to a
comparatively high level of church activity, with religiously active people often displaying better physical health, better social support, and healthier lifestyle behaviors, each of which promote longer life. Religious activity may also have an independent protective effect against mortality.
Even if we assume that Dr. Merrill�s statistical data is correct, and follows proper protocol, his conclusion is misleading and inconsistent with other data. This is true regarding his claims of superior LDS health in general, as well as his broad claims with respect to correlation between life expectancy and religious activity. ��
The principal flaw in Merrill�s analysis is his failure to compare the life expectancy of non-smoking Utah Mormons with that of Americans and Canadians in general. That comparison shows that non-smoking Mormons have a life expectancy that�s virtually identical with non-smokers in general.�� The surprise is not that non-smoking Mormons have a surprisingly long life expectancy (which they don�t), but rather that non-smoking non-Mormon Utahans have comparatively short life expectancies. While Merrill ponders the question �why do Mormons live so long?� the real issue raised by the results of his study is �What makes Utah so hazardous to the health of non-smoking non-Mormons.���
This short paper discusses Merrill�s claims in detail, taking a more critical look at what�s actually occurring in Utah, and whether or not religious activity really has the proclaimed effect on life expectancy.
Caution about LDS-sponsored statistics
The science of statistics often involves inductively drawing conclusions about a population based on metrics taken from a sample (sub group) of the population.�� The mathematics are often protracted, and the proper protocols beyond the reach of non-specialists, making it easy for charlatans, con artists, and apologists to misuse the science as a tool for advocating causes that span the spectrum from religion to politics.
�
There is both precedent and motive for the LDS Church and its apologists to inflate statistical metrics that reflect favorably on the church. Foremost among these is the belief that personal righteousness is correlated with prosperity.� Consider the Book of Mormon, which, according to founder Joseph Smith, is the keystone of the LDS Church. The following verses are typical of a theme repeated nearly 100 times throughout the Book of Mormon:[1]
And now, my son � I would that ye should keep the commandments of God, that ye may prosper in the land �Therefore, as they were unfaithful they did not prosper nor progress in their journey, but were driven back, and incurred the displeasure of God upon them; and therefore they were smitten with famine and sore afflictions, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty. [Mosiah 1: 7,17]
These verses from Mosiah are representative of the way the Book of Mormon repeats the message that righteous living results in prosperity, while failure to live righteously results in god�s condemnation, including natural disasters and poverty. Among Mormons these verses incite religious determination to see the church and its members viewed as blessed and prosperous; anything else calls into question, in their minds, their personal righteousness and the truthfulness of their religion.
One of the best examples of abuse of statistics by Mormon apologists is a study by Richard T. Wootton. FAIR (an apologetic arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) claims, based on Wootton�s studies, that �For 80 years every study has shown that in relation to population Utah was number one in spawning scientists��[2] Wootton�s analysis, fatally flawed by unscientific sampling techniques, results in conclusions that are thoroughly discredited by statistics from the National Science Foundation.[3]
�
Few things spell �prosper� within Mormon culture more than the acquisition of converts. Mormons believe their church is destined to �roll forth� and �fill the whole earth.� It�s not surprising, therefore, to find examples of exaggeration in LDS statistics regarding membership in the Church.��
As an active LDS apologist, Merrill is certainly subject to significant social and personal pressure to produce statistics that paint the LDS community in a �prosperous� light. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that some of his earlier statistical studies regarding Mormonism are highly suspect. For example, according to Merrill:
About 70% of the 2.3 million population in the state [of Utah] is affiliated with the LDS Church
Official LDS membership statistics claim an even higher percentage.� According to the 2004 Church Almanac, Utah is 75.3% LDS.[4] Yet, in an independent survey, USA Today found that only 57% of Utahan�s admitted to membership in the LDS Church.
Viewed another way, the numbers from Merrill and the LDS almanac are approximately equivalent to the Mormon Church claiming, as members, all the Utahans who admit to being Mormon as well as all those claiming to be members of the Roman Catholic Church, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglican, and Muslims.[5] �In light of the poll results from USA Today, it�s hard to imagine greater hubris than the Utah membership figures from Merrill and the LDS Church. Such are the results of statistics driven by the need to fulfill a pre-existing belief in spiritual superiority.
�Separately, Merrill also claims that
Of the 70% of the state�s population who is LDS in Utah, approximately 71% attend church weekly, compared with 33% among other religions.
The LDS Church does not publish activity rates, but the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (written by Mormons with support of LDS-owned Brigham Young University) says:
“Attendance at sacrament meeting varies substantially. Asia and Latin America have weekly attendance rates of about 25 percent, Europe averages about 35 percent” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, 1992, 4:1527.)
“Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States average between 40 percent and 50 percent.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, 1992, 4:1527.)
Again, we see a tendency for Merrill to inflate favorable statistical measures relating to the LDS Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often encourages and helps to propagate the notion that it is fastest-growing religion.[6] The claim is untenable, even when using LDS-supplied figures for Mormon membership. ��For example, table 1 compares the growth of the Seventh Day Adventists with that of the LDS Church for 2000. As you can see, the Adventists grew much faster in real numbers, and as a percentage, than the Mormon Church.
|
|
LDS[7] |
Seventh Day Adventists[8] |
|
Total Church Membership |
11,068,861 |
11,687,229 |
|
Baptisms |
355,423[9] |
931,335 |
|
Deaths |
Not reported |
44,298 |
|
Dropped |
Not reported |
153,121 |
|
Missing |
Not reported |
91,823 |
|
Other |
Not reported |
6488 |
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Comparison of membership growth for the LDS and Seventh Day Adventists (for year 2000).
LDS claims about growth rate are even weaker, however, because inconsistencies in their reporting clearly show that the LDS Church inflates and falsifies its membership records.�
For example, using US Census Bureau figures and the USA Today poll, the number of Americans claiming to belong to the LDS Church is roughly 4.339 million people. However, the LDS Church claims a US membership of about 5.47 million. This means there are more than a million Americans who deny being Mormons, who are carried by the LDS Church on its membership rolls (see Appendix 1 for the full tabulated results).
There have been instances in which the LDS Church has clearly reported fake membership statistics. For example, in 1999 the church claimed a membership of 10,752,986 people. They also reported, in that year, 306,171 convert baptisms and 84,118 baptisms of children, for a total of 390,289. But in 1998 the church reported total membership of 10,354,241 people. Note that the difference in total membership between 1998 and 1999 is 398,745 � a larger number than the total number of converts and child baptisms that year.[10]
Numerically, this is equivalent to claiming that no members of the LDS Church died in 1999, no members left (apostatized or were excommunicated) and that over 9,000 former members rejoined the church. Needless to say, that situation is unlikely. For example, using Utah�s death rate of about 5 deaths per 1000 people, the LDS Church, with a claimed membership of about 12 million people should, on average, have about 60,000 deaths each year. In addition, at least some members should be expected to leave the church. Unconfirmed estimates put this number at several hundred each day, and that doesn�t include people who simply walk away, and don�t bother to have their names officially removed. Given the discrepancy in these numbers, it seems the likely scenario is that the LDS Church exaggerates its membership statistics in an attempt to maintain a public presentation of a �prosperous� organization.
In examining Merrill�s claims regarding Utah Mormons and Mormon health, we need to proceed cautiously, realizing that there are many ways in which statistical studies can be corrupted by pre-existing bias, and understanding that there is a clear bias on the part of energetic Mormon apologists, such as Merrill, to paint Mormonism as spiritually superior to other life styles. Even so, let�s be generous and accept Merrill�s statistical study about LDS life expectancy, although we should remain mindful of the probability it is skewed to shine an unrealistically favorable light on his church.
Life expectancy of non-smoking Utahans
Life expectancy is the average number of years an individual is expected to life if current mortality rates continue to apply. It depends, obviously, on a person�s age (older people can be expected, on average, to live fewer additional years than younger ones), and is commonly stated at birth.� Life expectancy is thus a statistical measure with a non-ambiguous mathematical definition. Consider a particular group, after all members of the group have lived their lives and died, the average lifetime equals the life expectancy (at birth). Such measurements are impractical in reality (you have to wait for everyone to die, so you only know the answer in hind sight) so life expectancy is usually extrapolated through calculations using current mortality rates.
Because life expectancy is a statistical measure of a group of people, it depends heavily on the group in consideration. For example, soldiers engaged the war in Iraq have a longer life expectancy than the women and children living there. ��Similarly, poor blacks in southern US ghettoes have a lower life expectancy than suburban whites in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Over the last several decades, modern science has produced a wealth of knowledge about the health hazards of cigarette smoking, and we now know that smoking, on average, reduces a person�s expected lifetime by many years.� Consequently, within any given population consisting of smokers and non-smokers (all other things being equal), the life expectancy of the non-smoking group will generally exceed the life expectancy of the group that smokes.
Dr. Merrill�s data shows that Utahns that don�t smoke, and are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have a longer life expectancy than Utahns who don�t smoke and don�t belong to the church.[11]�� According to Merrill�s data, for example, a non-smoking male LDS member who is 20 years old can expect to live another 59.0 years, but a non-smoking male non-LDS Utahan can expect to live only an additional 54.0 years. So otherwise equivalent non-LDS Utahans, in this case, have a life expectancy that�s 5 years shorter than their LDS counterparts.� Merrill then proceeds with the unspoken assumption that these two groups are statistically the same in all respects, except for their membership in the church, which implies that church membership is the causal reason for the difference.
Merrill finds this difference statistically significant, and it is.� However, there are two possible scenarios for this difference. One of these scenarios is favorable to Mormonism and the other isn�t. As a devout Mormon apologist, Merrill obviously favors the LDS-pleasing explanation, while failing to properly consider the alternative, even though it is a better explanation for the data.
The explanation most flattering to the LDS Church is that LDS members rise above the average and thus live longer than their fellow non-Mormon citizens. This is the explanation offered by Merrill. ��Merrill suggests that Mormons have an extended life expectancy because of a superior lifestyle and because of greater blessings due to more involvement in religious activity.
It�s not difficult to understand why Merrill focuses on this explanation.� The Mormon Church teaches that it is the �only true and living church� on earth. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon, keystone of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, teaches that obedience to the church brings blessings.� Indeed, this is a dominant theme in the Book of Mormon, which proclaims that those who follow the teachings will prosper in the land, while those who don�t will be cut off. As an active member of the church, Merrill�s desire to find statistical evidence supporting the notion of extra blessings for members of the church is thus understandable and expected.
Though understandable, Merrill�s failure to consider other explanations represents an intellectual lapse, especially since the data more firmly support the second explanation which posits that the life expectancy of non-smoking Mormons is essentially the norm for non-smoking people everywhere, and that non-Mormons living in Utah have a suppressed life expectancy. One possible reason for this suppressed life expectancy could be stress. This stress might arise, for example, from being a minority in a state where members of the dominant religion control virtually all seats of government, and where the dominant religion is often seen to run roughshod over the civil rights and liberties of the minority, while looking down upon other religions and lifestyles with moral contempt.
This second explanation for the statistical data is far less flattering to Mormonism, and so it�s not surprising that Merrill largely ignores it.� However, statistical data from the United States and Canada show that non-smoking Utah Mormons have a life expectancy that is inline with non-smokers throughout American and Canada. So the second possibility � the one Merrill ignores � is probably the more correct explanation for the data. That is, rather than showing that Utah Mormons have some sort of extra religious blessings causing them to live longer, the data support the conclusion that Utah non-Mormons � even when corrected for smoking-related deaths � have a suppressed life expectancy. The scientific objective should be to find the reason for the suppressed life expectancy of non-Mormon Utahns, rather than to explain the non-surprising life expectancy for non-smoking Utah Mormons. ���
Consider the data in table 2, which is reproduced in graphical form in figures 1 and 2. This table reproduces some of the data from table 4 in Merrill�s article, but it also includes the life expectancies for people living in the United States and Canada.�� The first column lists 4 ages, (20, 40, 60, and 80 years) and the subsequent columns show the life expectancies for 4 different groups. The first group (second column) consists of non-smoking Utah Mormons, the third, fourth, and fifth columns are life expectancy actuaries from different sources, for non-Smoking Americans and Canadians. The final column is for non-smoking, non-Mormon Utahns.
Columns 2 and 6 were taken from Merrill�s article, and columns 3, 4, and 5 were taken from actuary tables created by insurance companies. Life expectancy is a critical piece of information for insurance companies, and they spend a great deal of money collecting this data and ensuring that it is correct.
Upon examining table 1, the most immediate observation is the nearly perfect agreement between columns 2, 3, 4, and 5. This is true for both men and women, and it shows that non-Smoking Utah Mormons have a life expectancy that is almost exactly inline with the life expectancy for non-smoking Americans and Canadians in general. In other words, there is nothing remarkable about the life expectancy of non-smoking Utah Mormons. It�s exactly as expected, and in statistical agreement with the life expectancy of non-smokers across North America. In examining these data there is no need to speculate about a healthier religious lifestyle, or extra blessings for the chosen people because non-smokers in general have the same life expectancy as non-smoking Mormon Utahans.
|
Life expectancy for non-smoking males |
|||||
|
Age |
Utah LDS[12] |
Future Financial[13] |
Hatton[14] |
Canada Life[15] |
Utah non-LDS2 |
|
20 |
59.0 |
59.39 |
59.0 |
58.7 |
54.0 |
|
40 |
40.2 |
40.16 |
40.0 |
39.8 |
36.6 |
|
60 |
22.3 |
21.86 |
22.5 |
21.5 |
19.9 |
|
80 |
8.5 |
8.19 |
NA |
7.7 |
7.5 |
|
Life expectancy for non-smoking females |
|||||
|
Age |
Utah LDS |
Future Financial |
Hatton |
Canada Life |
Utah non-LDS |
|
20 |
63.3 |
63.71 |
63.3 |
63.2 |
59.2 |
|
40 |
43.9 |
44.14 |
43.8 |
43.7 |
40.3 |
|
60 |
25.4 |
25.49 |
25.5 |
24.9 |
22.4 |
|
80 |
10.5 |
10.32 |
NA |
9.6 |
7.7 |
Table 2. Life expectancy for men (top) and women (below) non smokers. The data for Utah LDS and non-LDS came from Merrill�s paper and the other three columns represent life insurance actuarial data. Note the similarity between the life expectancy for LDS Utahans and those for the general population in the US and Canada. The last column, for non-LDS Utahans, stands out because the life expectancy of this group is so low. Rather than asking, �Why is the life expectancy of LDS Utahans is so high?� (which it isn�t, compared with the general population in both the US and Canada) as Merrill does, the more appropriate question is, �why is the rate for non-LDS Utahans so low?�� Worded another way, one might ask, �What is it about Utah that makes it so unhealthy for non-Mormons?�
The real anomaly here, and the one largely ignored by Merrill, is why the life expectancy for non-Mormon, non-smoking Utahns is so low. While a non-smoker in America or Canada can expect to live, on average, 59 years past their 20th birthday, a non-smoking, non-Mormon Utahan can expect to live only 54 years. Why?� Why is Utah so deadly to non-Mormons, enough to lower the non-Mormon, non-smoker life expectancy by so much relative to the national norm?
Figure 1. Graph of life expectancy for non-smoking men (data taken from table 1). The most striking thing about this graph is the low life expectancy for non-Mormon Utahan�s compared to non-smoking men in general. Data from the Hatton, Future Financial, and Canadian actuaries clearly shows that the life expectancy for non-smoking Mormon Utahans is inline with the non-smoker life expectancy in American and Canada. The anomaly that requires an explanation is �why is Utah so deadly to the health of non-Mormons?�
It�s possible that Utah, for whatever reason, is deadly to everyone and that Mormons living outside of Utah live longer than Mormons living within the state. To test this hypothesis we look to data reported in the National Library of Medicine:[16]
Based on Church records for 15,500 California Mormons during 1968 to 1975 and for 55,000 Utah Mormons during 1970 and 1975, the � life expectancy for active Mormon men at age 35 is about 44 years, over 7 years greater than for U.S. white males.
Note the life expectancy for the California Mormons, and compare this with the data reported by Merrill (see table 1). Merrill doesn�t give the life expectancy for 35-year-old Mormons, but we can interpolate his data and arrive at a figure of about 45.2 years. Compare this with the life expectancy data from the California study, which pegs the life expectancy of 40-year-old Mormon men at 44 years. The data are in good agreement, and certainly don�t support the hypothesis that Utah Mormons have a shorter life expectancy than Mormons elsewhere in the United States.� And, as already shown, non-smoking Mormons have the same life expectancy as non-smoking Americans and Canadians.� There is nothing in any of these data to suggest that the longevity of Mormons is extraordinary compared with non-smokers of other religions, or non-smokers with no religion. Although these reports have been used for propaganda purposes by Mormons for many years, the data simply do not support the conclusion that membership in the Mormon faith entails any health benefits beyond those experienced by anyone, Mormon or non-Mormon, who does not smoke.
Figure 2. These data mirror those in figure 1, but show the data for women. Note the consistent trend � showing again that Utah is, somehow, an unhealthy place for non-smoking non-Mormons.
Reading again from the abstract in the National Library of Medicine, it says �The remaining life expectancy for active Mormon men at age 35 is about 44 years, over 7 years greater than for US white males.� Note that this conclusion does not discriminate between US white males who smoke and those who don�t. An article appearing April 19, 2005, in the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries, titled �Actuaries’ new life tables show smoker/non smoker mortality difference larger than male/female� says:
The Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI), part of the Actuarial Profession, today published new mortality tables which show � for the first time � that the difference in mortality between smokers and non-smokers is greater than the gap between men and women at almost every age.
�
This is in good general agreement with the claims for extended longevity of Mormons who don�t smoke, relative to the population as a whole. So, once again, we see than the life expectancy of non-smoking Mormons is inline with the life expectancy of non-smokers in general, and that LDS life expectancy presents no anomaly requiring an explanation.
Merrill, however, seems determined that the life expectancy of non-smoking Mormons is somehow remarkable and needs an explanation. Not surprisingly, he suggests that the reason is somehow to be found in extra blessings, of some sort, arising from membership in his church. He asserts that �differences in life expectancy of 5.8 years for males and 4.6 years for females were not directly explained by deaths attributed to tobacco use� and then proceeds to postulate that Mormon health is augmented by �factors associated with religious activity, such as better physical health, better social support, healthier lifestyle behaviors, and possibly an independent protective effect against mortality from religious activity itself.� Indeed, so forceful is Merrill with this conclusion that he repeats it in his paper no less than three times.
Let�s examine, briefly, these claims:
1) Better physical health and Healthier lifestyle behaviors
According to Merrill, the LDS dietary code, known as the Word of Wisdom may be responsible for the difference in life expectancy between non-smoking Utah Mormons and non-smoking non-Mormon Utahns. This is an unlikely cause for differentiation, however, as the Word of Wisdom has little dietary value outside of its prohibition against smoking (a prohibition that was not uncommon in Joseph Smith�s day, when the Word of Wisdom was written). The Word of Wisdom is generally vague and fails to mention important food groups all together. For example, the Word of Wisdom never mentions dairy products and it only weakly alludes to vegetables, never mentioning them by name. It proposes moderate use of meat (to be used only when it�s cold) and says that grains, wheat in particular, are the staff of life.� It also makes no mention of exercise or physical activity as a prerequisite for good health (though it does mention it as a consequence of following the dietary rules).
The original Word of Wisdom allowed moderate use of wine (home made) but modern Mormons eschew wine all together. In doing so they undoubtedly benefit from less inclination toward overindulgence and the many associated illnesses that accompany alcoholism � but they may also deny themselves the clear health benefits from moderate use (which, ironically, the original Word of Wisdom prescribed).[17] The same can be said for tea, which is prohibited under the Word of Wisdom, but has been shown to have high correlation with several aspects of good health.[18]
Obesity is one of America�s top health concerns, and according to the Obesity ‘Report Card’ Released by the University of Baltimore’s Obesity Initiative (2005), Utah got an �F.�[19]�� Low grades were awarded to states for not working hared enough to control childhood obesity. The report card says, “Given the importance of establishing healthy habits early in life, the results are very disappointing.� Idaho and Wyoming (heavily Mormon states) each earned an �F�.
|
State |
Percent of Obese Adults |
Rank |
|
Alabama |
28.4 |
1 |
|
Mississippi |
28.1 |
2 |
|
West Virginia |
27.7 |
3 |
|
Indiana |
26.0 |
4 |
|
Kentucky |
25.6 |
5 |
|
Arkansas |
25.2 |
6 |
|
Georgia |
25.2 |
|
|
Michigan |
25.2 |
|
|
Tennessee |
25.0 |
9 |
|
Ohio |
24.9 |
10 |
|
Louisiana |
24.8 |
11 |
|
Texas |
24.6 |
12 |
|
South Carolina |
24.5 |
13 |
|
Oklahoma |
24.4 |
14 |
|
North Carolina |
24.0 |
15 |
|
Delaware |
24.0 |
|
|
Iowa |
23.9 |
17 |
|
Nebraska |
23.9 |
|
|
Pennsylvania |
23.8 |
19 |
|
North Dakota |
23.7 |
20 |
|
Missouri |
23.6 |
21 |
|
Alaska |
23.5 |
22 |
|
California |
23.2 |
23 |
|
Illinois |
23.2 |
|
|
Minnesota |
23.0 |
25 |
|
South Dakota |
22.9 |
26 |
|
Kansas |
22.6 |
27 |
|
Maryland |
21.9 |
28 |
|
Idaho |
21.8 |
29 |
|
Virginia |
21.7 |
30 |
|
Washington |
21.7 |
|
|
Oregon |
21.5 |
32 |
|
Nevada |
21.2 |
33 |
|
New York |
20.9 |
34 |
|
Wisconsin |
20.9 |
|
|
Utah |
20.8 |
36 |
|
District of Columbia |
20.3 |
37 |
|
New Hampshire |
20.2 |
38 |
|
New Mexico |
20.2 |
|
|
Arizona |
20.1 |
40 |
|
New Jersey |
20.1 |
|
|
Wyoming |
20.1 |
|
|
Florida |
19.9 |
43 |
|
Maine |
19.9 |
|
|
Vermont |
19.6 |
45 |
|
Connecticut |
19.0 |
46 |
|
Montana |
18.8 |
47 |
|
Rhode Island |
18.4 |
48 |
|
Massachusetts |
16.8 |
49 |
|
Hawaii |
16.4 |
50 |
|
Colorado |
16.0 |
51 |
|
Total average |
22.8 |
|
�
Table 3.� State-by-state comparison of adult obesity rates (2004).
Utah scores better in terms of overall obesity among adults, where the state ranks 36 out of 50 (plus the District of Columbia). This places Utah within 1 standard deviation of the median which, while respectable, hardly serves as the basis for grandiose claims of �better physical health� or �healthier lifestyle behaviors� (see table 3.[20])
A more recent study by Merrill paints an even more interesting picture.� This study was based on data from figures obtained in 1996, 2001, and 2003-2004 by the Utah Health Status Survey.� The results show that LDS Church members, on average, weigh 4.6 pounds more than their non-Mormon counterparts. The study, involving a cross section of Utah adults from different religions, also found that LDS Church members are 14 percent more likely (18 percent for males, 9 percent for females) to be obese than their non-LDS counterparts.[21]
Depression is another metric for gauging general health. Merrill asserts that Mormons have better mental health than their non-Mormon counterparts, yet Utah leads the nation in the use of antidepressant drugs.
Doctors here have for years talked about the widespread use of antidepressants in the state. But there was no hard evidence until a national study that tracked drug prescriptions came to an unexpected conclusion: �Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average.[22]
Since Utah is predominantly Mormon, we can conclude that, if Merrill is correct about Mormons having better mental health than their non-Mormon neighbors, the non-Mormon neighbors must have extraordinary rates of depression. Once again, if we accept the data from the apologetic press, we conclude that Utah is an extra dangerous place for non-Mormons, not just in terms of physical health, but mental health as well.
2) Better social support
Mormons are well known for taking care of each other, and they actively promote that public image. While the anecdotal stories may be inflated, it�s probably true that, overall, Mormons benefit from strong social support. Social support can be (and is) found among many other groups, too, and it�s not clear that Mormonism provides vastly superior social support, compared to what many Americans find in other churches and organizations. �
While Mormon society can provide support to the faithful, it can also be the source of a great deal of stress for ex-Mormons and non-Mormons. One of the ways this can happen is through acts of discrimination (both deliberate and incidental). Consider the following story:[23]
William Carlton May thought a promotion to chief executive officer of Totally Awesome Computers seemed logical. After all, he says, he had been running the company’s day-to-day operations for three years.
But owner Dell Schanze kept saying the then-vice president would be perfect for the job, except he wasn’t Mormon, May contends. Schanze allegedly told May, “You cannot make decisions the way I want you to because you are not LDS.”
That allegation could be part of a weeklong trial slated to begin Monday on May’s wrongful-firing lawsuit against Superdell’s Computers Inc., a Sandy-based company that does business as Totally Awesome Computers (TAC).
May’s attorneys plan to present evidence intended to show Schanze was a volatile boss who discriminated against minorities and people who were not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Anecdotal stories of similar acts of discrete discrimination abound. All too often, in Utah, LDS members are presumed to have an automatic advantage over non-Mormons when the hiring manager or boss is an active member of the church.
LDS opposition to atheists,[24] women�s rights,[25] and gays[26] is well known. The LDS Church opposed the Equal Rights amendment, and was instrumental in organizing key constituencies in defeating the civil-rights legislation. The Church actively fights against legislation that would protect gays from discrimination, and they show a heavy-handed intolerance regarding the constitutional rights of atheists, as well. [27] �Utah government is almost entirely composed of Mormons, and it�s a poorly kept secret that Mormons often feel obligated or pressured into doing the bidding of their ecclesiastical leaders when making decisions about public policy.[28] Such bullying by the predominant LDS majority can be expected to raise stress and tension in Utah�s non-Mormon community.
Additionally, the Church has fought for legislation giving religious organizations the right to discriminate based on religious thought and action even when the job at hand (a janitorial position, for example) has no religious/spiritual component.[29] And, it was only relatively recently that the LDS Church dropped its racist doctrines that denied Blacks into the church�s priesthood.[30] The church viciously fights any legislation that they believe violates their constitutional right to practice religion (such as the right to have zoning and land-use laws waived for their temples and meeting houses).[31] ��At the same time, however, they routinely refuse requests by individuals who ask that their names be removed from the church�s membership rolls, thus infringing on the individual�s right of association.[32]
A further indicator of stress among non-Mormons in a Mormon-dominated state is offered by yet another LDS apologist:[33]
For example, the suicide rate among less active LDS church members aged 25 to 29 was seven times higher than among their active church peers. Nationally, the suicide rate among 20- to 34-year old males was 2.5 to 3 times higher than among active LDS church members of the same age. Suicide risk was also 3 to 6 times higher among nonmembers in comparison to active members of the LDS church.
According to Utah State statistics:[34]
At one suicide every 28 hours, Utah‘s rate has remained among the highest in the nation for more than two decades (13.74 per 100,000 population in Utah vs. 10.66 per 100,000 population nationwide). The Utah suicide rate for young males is the highest in the nation at 22 per 100,000 population (the U.S. rate is 17.46).
So, Utah�s suicide rate for young men is the highest in the nation, yet LDS apologists claim the rate among active LDS men is only about 1/3rd the national average. �Assuming the apologists are correct, then Utah�s highest-in-the-nation suicide rate must be due to the non-Mormon component of the population. But the non-Mormon population is less than 50%, so the suicide rate among non-Mormon young men in Utah must be much higher than the national rate for non-Mormon young men in general.
As with the attenuated life expectancy of non-smoking non-Mormons from Utah, this statistical data offers further support for the hypothesis that the LDS-dominated culture of Utah is dangerous for the health of non-Mormons, and young non-Mormon men in particular. The data isn�t explained by longer life among Mormons due to �better social support.� On the contrary, the data suggest that there are significant risks to the health of non-Mormons due to social/political agendas pursued by the church and its members.
3) Independent protective effect against mortality from religious activity itself
According to Merrill, Mormons �possibly� benefit from �an independent protective effect against mortality from religious activity itself� and he cites work done by Wilkins 2003; Ross and Mirowsky 2002; Klein et al. 2002; McCullough et al. 2000; Ellison and Levin 1998.
These studies showing a presumed correlation between religious involvement and life expectancy are coming under increasing scrutiny. For example, in an article titled The Epidemiology of Religion (For “Reality Check” in Skeptical Briefs, Vol 11, no. 3, September, 2001) Vic Stenger writes:[35]
Epidemiological studies, in general, are notoriously difficult to interpret reliably because of so-called “confounding factors.” A given study may indicate a correlation between an illness and some factor, but this does not necessarily prove that the factor is the cause (or cure) of the illness. In an amusing example given by psychiatrist Richard P. Sloan, a study might find that lung cancer is more prevalent among people who carry around matches in their pockets. It would not follow that matches cause lung cancer.
Vic Stenger points out that
A review of the literature from a more critical perspective has been provided by R. P. Sloan, E. Bagiella, and T. Powell in the British medical journal Lancet. They concluded that the published work lacks consistency and is not based on sufficiently large samples of data. Linda Gundersen has also reviewed the subject in Annals of Internal Medicine and finds that the conclusions of several of the studies are doubtful.
Stenger points out that most of the epidemiological studies regarding the purported health effects of religion have been based on church attendance. ��A major problem with this metric is that people (and institutions like the Mormon Church, as we�ve already seen) tend to embellish their religious involvement.� This serves to seriously skew the research and lends considerable uncertainty to the studies made. In an excellent article titled Church, Lies, and Polling Data, Andrew Walsh says:[36]
In 1993, Chaves, Kirk Hadaway of the United Churchof Christ, and Penny Marler of Samford Universityignited the debate about “overrepresentation” by reporting the results of a study of church attendance by Protestants in Ashtabula County, Ohio, and in 18 Roman Catholic dioceses around the country. Instead of using telephone polling, the researchers counted heads at services and in parking lots, and checked with pastors. They then estimated that 20 percent rather than 40 percent of Protestants, and 28 percent rather than 50 percent of Catholics, attend church weekly. The study, “What the Polls Don�t Show: A Closer Look at U.S.Church Attendance,” appeared in the American Sociological Review.
�
Scholars whose work has relied on the polling data were particularly unhappy with the challenge. The Rev. Andrew Greeley-Catholic priest, novelist, columnist, and sociologist-was incensed by the study, denouncing it in a Religion News Service column as “a sloppy piece of work” that naively extrapolated regional findings into national ones. Hadaway, Chaves, and Marler responded that they weren�t attacking the validity of poll data, merely pointing out its sharp limitations. “Americans misreport how often they vote, how much they give to charity, and how frequently they use illegal drugs. People are not entirely accurate in their self-reports about other areas as well,” Hadaway wrote in the magazine Christian Century. “Males exaggerate their number of sexual partners, university workers are not very honest about reporting how many photocopies they make. Actual attendance at museums, symphonies and operas does not match survey results. We should not expect religious behavior to be immune to such misreporting.�
After the first wave of scholarly discussion, Hadaway et al. returned to Ashtabula County to measure Catholic attendance. They counted heads at all of the regularly scheduled masses in the county-38 in 13 parishes-over a several-month period. Based on the count, they projected an average weekly attendance of 24 percent of the Catholic population (a figure not far out of line with numbers reported by many Midwestern Catholic dioceses based on their own head counts). They then polled a scientifically valid sample of Ashtabula County residents by telephone. Fifty-one percent of Roman Catholic respondents said they had attended church during the past week.
We�ve already seen evidence that the LDS Church embellishes its membership figures, and viewed within the broader context painted by Walsh it seems to make sense.
In addition to the problem of self reporting religious activity, Stenger points out that:
none of these reports have the statistical significance that merit their being regarded as definitive. Furthermore, the studies have been unable to adequately establish a clean causal connection between religion and health. As Sloan and his coauthors explain, when confounding variables are considered, these can explain most if not all of the effects observed. For example, a 1972 study that is often cited as evidence for a positive association between church attendance and health was later found, by its own authors, to be due to failure to control for people with reduced mobility. People in poorer health were simply less likely to go to church.
Additional points raised by Stenger include:
� If there is a correlation between positive thinking and health, should we conclude that positive thinking causes good health or that good health causes positive thinking?
� Far fewer prison inmates are atheists in proportion to their representation in the general population, and far more are Christians. Should we conclude that Christians are more likely to be criminals, or is it possible that some criminals that claim a religious conversion do so because Parole boards tend to look favorably on convicts that become �born again?�
� Filtering by the media gives a false sense of what the evidence says, on balance. For example, studies exist which indicate a negative influence of religion on health, although you have to dig to find them since they are rarely reported in the media or in uncritical reviews. For example, Koenig and his collaborators selected only favorable studies in their review and ignored even some of their own work that gave conclusions opposite to the ones they preferred to see.
The significance of this last point should not be underestimated. News reporters have a vested interest in telling people news that sells, and most people want to believe that their religious involvement gives them some sort of benefit. For example, in the March 2002 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Kevin Christopher reports:
A tiny Associated Press story, dated December 12, 2001, and written with barely enough copy to fill two column-inches of space in any newspaper, announced the findings of the Mayo Clinic’s just-published clinical study on the healing powers of intercessory prayer. In a nutshell, the Mayo researchers could not find any evidence that such prayer affected the health of the study subjects. In fairness to AP, a story about what scientists say they did not find doesn’t exactly burst into flames on any editor’s desk (and, at least, the AP reported something). AP reported given the heavy ink poured forth at the media’s altar of Medicine and Spirituality, one would have thought such findings–especially Mayo Clinic findings–might merit more attention from health and religion editors.
The study in question, conducted by Dr. Jennifer Aviles and colleagues, and led by Dr. Stephen L. Kopecky, is titled “Intercessory Prayer and Cardiovascular Disease Progression in a Coronary Care Unit Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Published in the December 2001 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Aviles et al. found no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.”
Merrill, of course, makes no mention of such studies.
When comparing two groups and trying to understand the extent to which a single factor is responsible for something like enhanced life expectancy, it�s necessary to use observations in which samples from the two groups are exactly the same, except for the factor under investigation. For example, religious people should not be compared with the general population.� Instead, they should be compared with groups that have similar healthy habits, and whose only difference is in their religious practices.
Sometimes it�s not feasible to identify two groups that are exactly the same, except for a single factor. We can still explore the causes of the factor if we look at the statistical correlation of that factor with many different groups. By using may different groups, the slight differences between them (outside the factor of interest) can be expected (sometimes) to average out, leaving the factor of interest as a trend among the data.
Keeping these issues clearly in our mind, let�s consider what we should find if, as Merrill claims, there is �a robust association between religious involvement and lower mortality.�
If Merrill�s claim is true, then we should see a strong correlation between life expectancy and populations that have a high degree of religious involvement. To test Merrill�s assertion we can plot the life expectancy for different states and countries as a function of some measure of their religious involvement. Keep in mind, however, the earlier studies that show people exaggerate their religious involvement. One group that we expect would not exaggerate, however, is those who claim no religious affiliation. Thus, we can plot the life expectancy of the 50 states against the percentage of people in each state that claims no religious affiliation.
Fortunately, these data are readily available. A recent poll conducted by USA Today lists the number of non-church goers in each of the 50 continental states. Combining these data with life expectancy data for each state, we should (if Merrill is correct) see a negative correlation between the prevalence of non-believers in a given state and the state�s life expectancy. In fact, however, the correlation is positive, and in dramatic disagreement with Merrill�s assertion.
Figure 3 shows a scatter plot in which the horizontal axis represents the percent of a state�s population that claimed to belong to �no religion� (taken from the USA Today poll) and the vertical axis represents the life expectancy for the given state. Given Merrill�s assertion about a robust religious association resulting in a lower mortality rate, we would expect the correlation in figure 3 to be negative. That is, the more non believers in a given state, the lower the state�s life expectancy. Instead, we see the opposite trend.
Figure 3. Scatter plot (red dots) showing the life expectancy (in years, at birth) for the 48 lower states as a function of the percent of the population that does not profess a religion.[37] The blue line is a least-squares linear fit to the scatter plot, and shows that there is a slight positive correlation between increased life expectancy and the fraction of the population composed of individuals who don�t profess membership in any religion.
�
The straight line in figure 3 is a linear regression of the scatter plot. That is, it represents the best (statistical) linear approximation to the data. We can test the statistical significance of the linear regression in figure 3 by calculating the uncertainty of the slope (see appendix 2). This calculation shows that the slope equals 0.1322 and the standard deviation of the slope is 0.0446. This means it�s highly unlikely that the correlation is negative, and only turned up positive because of a statistical fluke. ��
We can look at a similar plot involving the life expectancy of different nations, plotted against the national rates of non-participation in religion (see figure 4). As with figure 3, life expectancy correlates positively with reduced religious activity.� Of course in all these data there are many factors involved. More industrialized countries with greater wealth tend to be less religious, and poorer countries tend to be more religious. These factors should not, however, be necessarily decoupled from the analysis because religion is such a wide-spread phenomenon, and because it affects every aspect of public policy. It is, in a word, woven throughout the social fabric. For example, religious activity could adversely affect mortality if religiously devout and/or fundamentalist people were less liberal and less supportive of national health-care systems.
Again we draw the conclusion that religious activity is negatively correlated with life expectancy. This conclusion is diametrically opposed to Merrill�s assertion that there is �a robust association between religious involvement and lower mortality.�� Clearly, if there is any benefit from religious activity at all, it is a very small effect (not robust at all) and unable to compensate for whatever extenuating factors religious apologists might invoke for the positive correlation between lack of religious activity and enhanced life expectancy.[38]
�
Figure 4. Scatter plot (red dots) showing the life expectancy (in years, at birth) for 52 countries as a function of the percent of the population that does not attend church at least once each week.[39] The blue line is a least-squares linear fit to the scatter plot, and shows that there is a slight positive correlation between increased life expectancy in a country and the fraction of the population composed of individuals who don�t attend church at least once each week. The data in this figure compare well with the data in figure 3, and both indicate a positive correlation between increased life expectancy and decreased involvement in organized religion.
The data plotted in figures 3 and 4 should not be misconstrued as proving a correlation between less religious activity and life expectancy. The data are, however, inconsistent with Merrill�s assertion that there is a strong correlation between increased church activity and increased life expectancy.��
Conclusions
Merrill�s analysis showing that non-smoking Utah Mormons live longer than non-smoking non-Mormon Utahans is probably correct. His conclusions, however, are badly flawed. Without looking at the life expectancy of non-Mormon non-Smokers nation wide, Merrill assumed that the question needing an answer is �why do Mormons live so long.� In reality, though, non-smoking Mormons have a life expectancy that is virtually identical with that of non-smoking Americans and Canadians in general.� The question needing an answer is actually �why do non-smoking non-Mormons from Utah have comparatively short life expectancy?�
The answer to this question is wide open, but one obvious area for future study centers on the roll played by Mormons in creating a stressful environment for their non-Mormon neighbors. As a theocratic state (in reality, if not by design) Utah presents a unique case study in the way a majority can influence the health of a minority. Non-Mormon Utahans live in a state where only 57% of the people claim membership in the Mormon Church, but where a much larger percentage of the elected officials are practicing LDS. The LDS Church wields enormous political and economic influence in the state. The Church is the largest employer in Utah and backroom deals with supposedly public officials often leave non-Mormons feeling disenfranchised. Utah Mormons are not shy about forcing their political and religious values on the state as a whole, and this could leave Utah�s non-Mormon population with a feeling of being under siege. This is particularly true of groups on the LDS hit list, including atheists and gays � two groups with little in common, except their mutual hatred by the LDS Church.
Ex-Mormons are especially susceptible to stress caused by the Mormon Church. Stories from ex-Mormons contain a common theme of exclusion, bigotry, and persecution at the hands of the LDS Church and its most forceful apologists.[40] Mormons who leave the LDS Church are frequently disinherited by their families. The Church encourages families to exclude ex-communicated family members, even insisting on such exclusion in matters such as attendance at temple weddings. A telling statistic is the divorce rate among families where one spouse is non Mormon.� When Mormons marry outside their religion the divorce rate soars to 40 percent — second only to mixed-faith marriages involving a Jewish spouse (42 percent).[41] If stress is a significant component in the reason non-smoking non-Mormons live shorter than the national average, we should expect the disparity to be even greater for ex-Mormons.
Appendix 1
|
State |
7/1/2004 population |
% LDS — USA Today |
�#LDS — USA Today |
% LDS — self reported |
#LDS — self reported |
Difference |
|
Alabama |
�4,530,182 |
1 |
��������� 45,302 |
0.6 |
��������� 27,181 |
������� (18,121) |
|
Arizona |
5,743,834 |
6 |
������� 344,630 |
6.4 |
������� 367,605 |
������ ��22,975 |
|
Arkansas |
2,752,629 |
0.3 |
����������� 8,258 |
0.8 |
��������� 22,021 |
�������� 13,763 |
|
California |
35,893,799 |
1 |
������� 358,938 |
2.2 |
������� 789,664 |
������ 430,726 |
|
Colorado |
4,601,403 |
2 |
��������� 92,028 |
2.7 |
������� 124,238 |
�������� 32,210 |
|
Connecticut |
3,503,604 |
2 |
��������� 70,072 |
0.5 |
��������� 17,518 |
������� (52,554) |
|
Delaware |
830,364 |
0.3 |
����������� 2,491 |
0.5 |
���������� 4,152 |
��������� 1,661 |
|
DC |
553,523 |
0.3 |
����������� 1,661 |
|
����������������� – |
�������� (1,661) |
|
Florida |
17,397,161 |
0.3 |
��������� 52,191 |
0.7 |
������� 121,780 |
�������� 69,589 |
|
Georgia |
8,829,383 |
1 |
��������� 88,294 |
0.7 |
��������� 61,806 |
������� (26,488) |
|
Idaho |
1,393,262 |
14 |
������� 195,057 |
27.4 |
������� 381,754 |
������ 186,697 |
|
Illinois |
12,713,634 |
0.3 |
��������� 38,141 |
0.4 |
��������� 50,855 |
�������� 12,714 |
|
Indiana |
6,237,569 |
0.3 |
��������� 18,713 |
0.5 |
��������� 31,188 |
�������� 12,475 |
|
Iowa |
2,954,451 |
0.3 |
����������� 8,863 |
0.6 |
��������� 17,727 |
��������� 8,863 |
|
Kansas |
2,735,502 |
1 |
��������� 27,355 |
1 |
��������� 27,355 |
���������������� – |
|
Kentucky |
4,145,922 |
0.3 |
��������� 12,438 |
0.6 |
��������� 24,876 |
�������� 12,438 |
|
Louisiana |
4,515,770 |
0.3 |
��������� 13,547 |
0.5 |
��������� 22,579 |
��������� 9,032 |
|
Maine |
1,317,253 |
0.3 |
����������� 3,952 |
0.7 |
���������� 9,221 |
��� ������5,269 |
|
Maryland |
5,558,058 |
3 |
������� 166,742 |
0.5 |
��������� 27,790 |
����� (138,951) |
|
Massachusetts |
6,416,505 |
0.3 |
��������� 19,250 |
0.2 |
��������� 12,833 |
�������� (6,417) |
|
Michigan |
10,112,620 |
0.3 |
��������� 30,338 |
0.4 |
��������� 40,450 |
�������� 10,113 |
|
Minnesota |
5,100,958 |
0.3 |
��������� 15,303 |
0.5 |
��������� 25,505 |
�������� 10,202 |
|
Mississippi |
2,902,966 |
0.3 |
����������� 8,709 |
0.6 |
��������� 17,418 |
��������� 8,709 |
|
Missouri |
5,754,618 |
1 |
��������� 57,546 |
0.9 |
��������� 51,792 |
�������� (5,755) |
|
Montana |
926,865 |
1 |
����������� 9,269 |
4.5 |
��������� 41,709 |
�������� 32,440 |
|
Nebraska |
1,747,214 |
1 |
��������� 17,472 |
1 |
��������� 17,472 |
���������������� – |
|
Nevada |
2,334,771 |
9 |
������� 210,129 |
8 |
������� 186,782 |
������� (23,348) |
|
New Hampshire |
1,299,500 |
0.3 |
����������� 3,899 |
0.6 |
���������� 7,797 |
��������� 3,899 |
|
New Jersey |
8,698,879 |
1 |
��������� 86,989 |
0.3 |
��������� 26,097 |
������� (60,892) |
|
New Mexico |
1,903,289 |
3 |
��������� 57,099 |
3.3 |
��������� 62,809 |
��������� 5,710 |
|
New York |
19,227,088 |
0.3 |
�� �������57,681 |
0.3 |
��������� 57,681 |
���������������� – |
|
North Carolina |
8,541,221 |
1 |
��������� 85,412 |
0.7 |
��������� 59,789 |
������� (25,624) |
|
North Dakota |
634,366 |
1 |
����������� 6,344 |
0.8 |
���������� 5,075 |
�������� (1,269) |
|
Ohio |
11,459,011 |
1 |
������� 114,590 |
0.4 |
��������� 45,836 |
������� (68,754) |
|
Oklahoma |
3,523,553 |
0.3 |
��������� 10,571 |
1 |
��������� 35,236 |
�������� 24,665 |
|
Oregon |
3,594,586 |
4 |
������� 143,783 |
4 |
������� 143,783 |
���������������� – |
|
Pennsylvania |
12,406,292 |
0.3 |
��������� 37,219 |
0.3 |
��������� 37,219 |
���������������� – |
|
Rhode Island |
1,080,632 |
0.3 |
����������� 3,242 |
0.3 |
���������� 3,242 |
���������������� – |
|
South Carolina |
4,198,068 |
0.3 |
��������� 12,594 |
0.7 |
��������� 29,386 |
�������� 16,792 |
|
South Dakota |
770,883 |
0.3 |
����������� 2,313 |
1 |
���������� 7,709 |
��������� 5,396 |
|
Tennessee |
5,900,962 |
0.3 |
��������� 17,703 |
0.6 |
��������� 35,406 |
�������� 17,703 |
|
Texas |
22,490,022 |
0.3 |
��������� 67,470 |
1 |
������� 224,900 |
������ 157,430 |
|
Utah |
2,389,039 |
57 |
����� 1,361,752 |
73.3 |
���� 1,751,166 |
������ 389,413 |
|
Vermont |
621,394 |
0.3 |
����������� 1,864 |
0.6 |
���������� 3,728 |
��������� 1,864 |
|
Virginia |
7,459,827 |
0.3 |
��������� 22,379 |
0.9 |
��������� 67,138 |
�������� 44,759 |
|
Washington |
6,203,788 |
3 |
������� 186,114 |
4 |
������� 248,152 |
�������� 62,038 |
|
West Virginia |
1,815,354 |
0.3 |
����������� 5,446 |
0.7 |
��������� 12,707 |
��������� 7,261 |
|
Wisconsin |
5,509,026 |
0.3 |
��������� 16,527 |
0.4 |
��������� 22,036 |
��������� 5,509 |
|
Wyoming |
506,529 |
7 |
��������� 35,457 |
11.3 |
��������� 57,238 |
�������� 21,781 |
|
Alaska |
655,435 |
4 |
��������� 26,217 |
4 |
��������� 26,217 |
���������������� – |
|
Hawaii |
1,262,840 |
4.7 |
��������� 59,353 |
4.7 |
��������� 59,353 |
���������������� – |
|
Total U.S. |
293,655,404 |
|
����� 4,338,706 |
|
���� 5,467,398 |
��� 1,128,692 |
Appendix 2
Positive correlation between no religious affiliation and life expectancy
Appendix 3
Positive correlation between less church activity and life expectancy