Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

West, Jack H. 1981. The Trial of the Stick of Joseph And: Ancient Ruins of America. Sounds of Zion.

Rating:
1

Review:
Mormon, apologetic trash. Before writing my review for this I wanted to validate some of the pathetic claims of the book that I was unfamiliar with, so I searched around a bit and found a very brief review of the book by John Sorenson. If you know much about John Sorenson then you probably know that he is often touted as the leading Mormon Archeologist supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The reason I look to John Sorenson for a review of this book is that he is a believing Mormon that actually works to prove the veracity of the Book of Mormon. I am an ex-Mormon that denies the veracity of the Book of Mormon. So if a Mormon thinks a book is ‘bad scholarship’ then I really don’t have to offend anyone when I say the same thing. Without further ado:
*********************************************************
INSTANT EXPERTISE ON BOOK OF MORMON ARCHAEOLOGY
A review article by John L. Sorenson, professor of anthropology and sociology at Brigham Young University.
Book Reviews, BYU Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, (Spring, 1976), pp.429-432
One of the cultural tragedies of these times is the looting of the sites and monuments of the past. A prime force behind this piracy is the desire of foolish people of wealth to possess tangible emblems of taste and refinement. They rarely invest their own efforts in order to understand history or to sense meaning in the art of past civilization. They are satisfied with the mere externals–with instant evidence of being cultured. And the gluttony of these ignorant rich is at least as condemnable as the looting itself.
The LDS book market shows similar swashbuckling. Many Mormons are willing to spend money for instant evidence of knowledge rather than to labor for the knowledge themselves. The result is consumer demand for intellectual loot. This is especially true about scholarly study of Book of Mormon archaeology. At least from the time of George Reynolds the Saints have avidly bought books which claim to offer them inside information on this scripture, particularly on its geography or what are termed “external evidences.” Some of these sources have actually been helpful to the serious reader. Many more, and these are the concern here, have harmed more than helped.
In terms of sales, these works have been dominated by the books by Dewey Farnsworth and his wife Edith, whose The Americas before Columbus has recently been reissued (“Fourth Printing,” Sacramento, California: Rich Publishing Co., 1975, $4.95, 176 pp.), nearly thirty years after its first appearance, but unchanged except for muddier-looking plates and a soft cover. Long ago I wrote a detailed review of Farnsworth’s Book of Mormon Evidences in Ancient America, which differed little from the one now on sale. The naive use of sources, logical inconsistencies, cut-and paste quotations, and harmful effects on the Church are pointed out there (University Archaeological Society Newsletter No. 18 [25 February 1954]:2-5; and in the UAS anthology Progress in Archaeology, 1963) in excruciating detail which I have not the heart to repeat.
Another perennial favorite in the same class has also reappeared: Jack West’s Trial of the Stick of Joseph (Sacramento: Rich Publishing Co., 1975, $2.90, 92 pp.). An expanded, cartoon-illustrated version appeared in 1971 as The Book of Mormon on Trial (Compiled by John W. Rich, Sacramento: Rich Publishing Co., 1971, $4.95, 245 pp.). The evidence and argument in either version are, if anything, more distressing than those in the Farnsworth book. At least the latter only reprints snippets from outdated sources to construct a picture which is thoroughly confused but not hostile to anyone. The West books use a “trial” format to misrepresent scholarship and show scholars as at best bumbling fools and at worst as willing enemies of truth. The assertion put into the mouths of the experts cannot be checked for accuracy because of inadequate documentation, but many of the statements are implausible and some are absurd. The overall impression given is that if Latter-day Saints use a few rhetorical tricks and imaginative selection of “evidence” in the worst tradition of the trial lawyer, those so-called experts who refuse to believe the Book of Mormon can easily be put in their places and we’ll live happily ever after.
Paul Cheesman’s books are bidding to take the place of Farnsworth’s in current LDS publishing. His These Early Americans: External Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974, $5,95, 298 pp.) was heavily promoted last year in the wake of an earlier book of pictures. These Early Americans is based directly on a thesis he completed at BYU. More a catalog or compilation than an exposition, the writing is disjointed, and a consistent argument is hard to discern. If there is a central idea, it is that certain cultural features mentioned in the Book of Mormon are indeed attested by non-LDS scholars. Quotations from or paraphrases of those scholars constitute a very large part of the text (one quote is three pages long). In some instances the intent of the scholar is turned on its head. For example, Robert Wauchope of Tulane University, who wrote a chapter in his Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents (1962) which pokes fun at the Book of Mormon, is made by Cheesman (page 24) to appear to support an Old World origin for New World civilization, which he absolutely does not. In others the “evidences” are of doubtful significance, although in some cases information of value is conveyed, as concerning wheeled “toys,” for example. The sources cited, though somewhat more frequently sound than Farnsworth’s, still indiscriminately mix oddballs with reliable scholars. Too often the latters’ statements are torn from context.
An inquiry about whether permissions had been solicited for the extensive quotations drew the response that it was not felt necessary. This loose procedure should be challenged on ethical grounds.
I do not presume to judge the motives of Farnsworth, West, Cheesman and others who publish in this vein. They seem to be zealous believers in the Book of Mormon. But zeal does not improve poor scholarship.
Then what is the harm from such publications? First, they train the reader that serious, critical thought is unnecessary and maybe even undesirable, that any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable, and that logical absurdity is as good as sound analysis. Second, the reader gets the false impression that all is well in Zion, that the outside world is being forced to the LDS point of view, and that the only role LDS scholars need play in Book of Mormon-related studies is to use scissors and paste effectively. Third, the underlying complexity and subtlety of the Book of Mormon are masked by a pseudo-scholarship to which everything is simple. This third effect encourages critics–e.g. John Price in The Indian Historian (1975) or Michael Coe in Dialogue (1973)–to set up a straw-man Book of Mormon to attack based on what Mormons have said about it instead of what it says itself. Coe, for example, knows little about the book, but he wrote from Mormon sources, after all. If we are willing to settle for surface reading and shallow study, why should a non-Mormon scholar expend energy to dig seriously into the Book of Mormon?
The Book and the Map. New Insights into Book of Mormon Geography, by Venice Priddis (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1975, $3.95, pp.), differs in focus from the volumes discussed above, but the quality of scholarship is similar. Ignoring all past serious study on Book of Mormon geography, Priddis picks one “key” statement and builds a fanciful picture of the Book of Mormon lands to accord with it alone–a picture, incidentally, that requires the Amazon and the Plate River basins to lie entirely under water. The evidence adduced is trivial, and the arguments are fatally flawed at point after point. Anyone willing to be this selective in what is to be noted and what ignored could constrict at least two dozen other geographical correlations for the Nephite scripture which could be equally (im)plausible.
As with ancient art for the ignorant rich, the “demand” from large numbers of Saints for easy explanations of difficult subjects which they are unwilling to pay the price to understand lies behind the exploitation represented by these volumes. Ancient Israel insisted Samuel give them a king, and with equal impatience, LDS readers today bring down on their heads the kind of books that serve them right.
But all this criticism may be too narrow. There is plenty of evidence that we Latter-day Saints are gullible on many subjects, not just this one. President Harold B. Lee expressed impatience with the rumor-mongering which is endemic among Mormons. Our folklore is rich from similar impulses. The too-generous standing ovations at BYU are becoming legendary. Salt Lake City has earned a nationwide reputation as a center for stock fraud, and Douglas Stringfellow beguiled Utahns for years. Now, if these tendencies are necessary accompaniments of the naivete of the meek, it is a small price to pay: far better to associate with a people having enough faith left that they can be gulled than to endure the company of the permanently cynical who fill so much of the world. But couldn’t we find a compromise position in which the wisdom of the serpent protected us more often from the consequences of dove-like innocence? Hyrum Smith observed in 1844, “It is better not to have so much faith as to believe all the lies.” The burden of repentance, I suggest, rests upon us all: on the reader who must be more critical and demanding of the writer whose work he buys, and on the writer who must be more critical and demanding of himself.
Original site: http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/john.htm
******************************************************
Though I could critique the argument presented in this article, I am using it for a different purpose and that is to illustrate that a lot of Mormon ‘archeology’ is worthless. What I particularly like about this is that he completely refutes the claim of Jack West in his book that Dewey Farnsworth is a non-Mormon author. In West’s book he says he is only going to draw upon non-Mormon sources for the archeology of the Book of Mormon. But the only book he cites from was written by a Mormon, Dewey Farnsworth. How is that for lies?
The entire book is trash. He builds one straw-man argument after another and then refutes them. If he really did defend the Book of Mormon in a trial at Stanford University and the trial turned out as he claimed it did, then the other law students that were prosecuting the case were idiots. This book is a complete waste of time.
If you are a believing Mormon who wants a ‘more accurate’ depiction of Ancient American archeology with a Mormon bent, subscribe to FARMS or read Rediscovering the Book of Mormon by Sorenson. If you would rather have a non-Mormon perspective on the origins of the Book of Mormon (i.e. when it first came about) try Early Mormonism and the Magic World View or www.lds-mormon.com.
As is typical with most apologetics, the book is poorly written, poorly researched, and worst of all, poorly argued. Don’t waste your time. Read Dialogue instead. My copy of the book had a bunch of misprinted pages and because it was such worthless gibberish anyway I threw it away.

Tanner, Jerald. 1981. The changing world of Mormonism: “a condensation and revision of Mormonism, shadow or reality”. Rev. ed. Moody Press.

Rating:
6

Summary:
I was hesitant to read this book by the Tanners given they’re notoriety as virulent anti-Mormons (as though I’m not opposed to Mormonism myself). I guess I was a little concerned that I would end up reading false accusations and poorly researched claims. Thankfully, this was not the case.

I had read some of their other writing, but not much, and found it acceptable. And in the numerous books and articles I have read that discuss Mormonism, I have come to realize that many more objective scholars actually respect the research conducted by the Tanners. As it turns out, despite not attempting to portray things from an objective perspective, the Tanners actually do good research. So, when I found this book freely available on their website a while back (here: , I decided I’d give it a look and see if what they had to say was both accurate and well-researched.

You can call Jerald and Sandra Tanner whatever you’d like – anti-Mormons, polemicists, muckrackers, etc. – but what you cannot call them is dishonest. Their work, while unfortunately cast in the evangelizing framework of conservative Christians, is still accurate and insightful into the problems of Mormonism. It’s too bad they don’t hold the Bible and teachings of Christianity up to the same level of scrutiny that they demand for Mormonism. Anyway, on to the summary…

The book doesn’t really seem to have a clear, logical flow to the chapters. They seem to be randomly arranged, but all address topics that are challenging to the beliefs and history of Mormonism. Topics covered include: changes in scripture, censorship by Mormon historians and church leaders, Joseph Smith’s use of a peepstone and his money digging adventures, Joseph Smith’s involvement with magic, the witnesses to the golden plates, criticisms of the Book of Mormon, the differing accounts of the First Vision, doctrinal changes, problems with Joseph Smith’s history, the Adam-God doctrine of Brigham Young, plural marriage – both polygamy and polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, the Book of Abraham and the “lost” papyrii, issues between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, Joseph Smith’s version of the Bible, Joseph Smith’s false and doctored prophecies, problems with the Priesthood ordination stories, Joseph Smith’s character flaws, and Mormon temple ceremonies and their ties to Freemasonry. The chapters are book-ended by testimonies and histories of the Tanners, detailing how they ultimately decided Mormonism is a fraud and left the religion.

Review:
There are several problems with the book, but they are pretty minor problems. First and foremost is the criticism I noted above: the authors don’t hold their beliefs to the same standard that they hold Mormonism – they remain conservative Christians believing in the authenticity of the Bible. I thought this perspective would be a bit more pervasive in the book, but I was pleasantly surprised. Their evangelizing only pops up on occasion, and it is easily glossed over. So, while it is distracting, it is not really that big of a deal.

In fact, there are actually a couple criticisms of Mormonism in the book that likely have resulted from their post-Mormon Biblical scholarship. For instance, the authors point out that Joseph Smith, in writing the Book of Mormon, draws heavily on the King James Version of the Bible. Mormons would reply that that makes sense, given Nephi and the other “authors” of the Bible had the Brass Plates, which are alleged to be an early copy of the Old Testament. The problem with this rebuttal is that if you carefully scrutinize sections of the Book of Mormon you find that it doesn’t quote the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible at all – it quotes the New Testament, “Simon Peter here paraphrases and condenses Moses’ lengthy statement…. The wording is quite different from that in Deuteronomy, but the writer of the Book of Mormon failed to check on the original statement and assumed that Peter’s report of it was a verbatim quotation. Therefore the Book of Mormon quotes Acts” (p. 123). That’s kind of a problem given the New Testament was written after that section of the Book of Mormon was allegedly written, and on the other side of the planet. Ooops!

Additionally, the Tanners point out that the Book of Mormon contains Greek names (like Timothy and Jonas), which were not found in the Old Testament. The alleged “authors” of the Book of Mormon would not have had access to those names. I’m sure apologists can come up with explanations, but it’s hard to refute Joseph Smith’s own, ignorant words, “When it was suggested that the word Mormon came from the Greek, he stated: “This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, … translated the Book of Mormon”” (p. 124). Finally, the Tanners take Mormons to task for criticizing the Bible. Considering the dependency of the Book of Mormon on the Bible, this is, in effect, undermining their own beliefs and simultaneously criticizes their “most correct” book – the Book of Mormon. In short, Mormons are way out of their league when it comes to their understanding of the Bible; any knowledgeable Christian can point to significant problems with Mormon beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Christians are right. I’m simply pointing out that Mormonism is not, in fact, congruous with many basic tenets of Christianity, despite being dependent on it.

The Tanners’ discussion of Mormonism and the Bible actually illustrated another important point. After leaving Mormonism I found myself questioning why Mormons continue to use an outdated version of the Bible when newer versions are written in modern language and have corrected the mistakes of the King James translation. The Tanners have an answer to that question: Given that the Book of Mormon plagiarizes so much of the King James Version of the Bible, if the religion ever moved to a newer, better version of the Bible (e.g., NIV), it would undermine the Book of Mormon. And since there are no “source” materials for the Book of Mormon to be retranslated into modern script, the Book of Mormon cannot, likewise, be updated. Thus, the Mormon religion is stuck using outdated scriptures because moving into the modern age would undermine Joseph Smith’s greatest fraud – his 19th century work of fiction known as The Book of Mormon… This is just one more way Mormonism is stuck behind the times.

The second problem I have with the book is the lack of logical ordering of the chapters. It makes sense why they are all in the book, but the order is not very clear. Also, the writing is not great. It is certainly understandable, but it is generally simple and to the point and does not make for particularly engaging reading. Of course, that is in comparison to well-written books. Compared to most of the “chloroform in print” that comes out of Mormonism, this book reads like a Dan Brown novel!

Also lacking in the book are convincing arguments that illustrate why the testimonies of the witnesses at the beginning of the Book of Mormon are worthless. The Tanners, in Chapter 5, attack the character of the witnesses. While that approach isn’t completely misguided, I prefer Grant Palmer’s tack: illustrating that most of these same men also acted as witnesses for a bunch of other crackpots and frauds. The implications of Palmer’s argument are pretty straightforward – these guys may have been upright citizens, but they were also ready and willing to jump on any supernatural claim and lend their (lack of) credibility to it by claiming it was divine. They never actually saw gold plates, since the gold plates did not and do not exist. But they were good at imagining things, and they imagined things for the rest of their lives, testifying that all sorts of books, prophecies, and frauds were true. Thus, any attack on the character of a witness of the gold plates should focus on their willingness to testify to the truthfulness of whatever fraudulent claim happened to be striking their fancy at the moment. They may not have been scoundrels, but neither were they very bright – they believed just about anything and would swear to that fact, regardless of the evidence.

Turning from criticisms to praise, the Tanners make some very good points that I have not seen as clearly illustrated in other critical works. For instance, the Tanners point out a basic assumption that is held by most Mormons: if revelation comes from god, it should be perfect. This assumption implies that, if the revelation changes, whoever presented the “revelation” didn’t really receive it from god or has nullified the validity of the revelation. The logic, while simplistic and not with its problems, fairly accurate represents the perspective of most believers – if god’s revelations change, they can’t really be from god. Apologists, of course, are quick to offer a retort: that the changes are insignificant and mostly pertain to grammar and spelling. Unfortunately for the apologists, the Tanners illustrate that there have been a number of significant changes made to both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that significantly alter the doctrinal meanings of the sections. As I noted above, the Tanners’ logic isn’t perfect – there are alternative explanations (e.g., (1) god is not perfect; (2) god changes his/her/its mind; (3) the person claiming to receive the revelation is just making shit up). But one thing is certain, if the revelations have changed, something isn’t right. You want to know what that something is? Mormonism!

One apologist has offered an additional rebuttal to the above criticism, “Melvin J. Petersen wrote: Once a man has been recognized and accepted as a prophet and favored with communications from God, his great responsibility is to make sure, inasmuch as he has power to do so, that those to whom the communications are directed, understand what God has revealed for them. The power is his to revise, correct, omit, or change any of his writings in order that he might manifest more clearly what God revealed through him…. A prophet cannot be justly criticized when he rewrites the commandments he received from God, for he is only doing that which is part of his role as a prophet” (p. 64). Okay, I’ll accept that claim. But let me, then, illustrate the implications for Mr. Petersen: Claiming a prophet can revise his “revelations” redefines what it means to be a prophet. Prophets are, by this definition: a leader of the church who occasionally issues statements that are accepted as “scripture” until he or an interpreter/apologist decides they are no longer “scripture” and instead are personal opinion. Said prophets have no insights beyond the ability to run a mega-corporation. They have no knowledge of: evolution, the existence of dinosaurs, the nature of the universe, how to translate languages, or even what someone’s name is without someone else telling them ahead of time. In short, a prophet is a wholly fallible individual who has assumed a position that is imbued with charisma because several million people are so indoctrinated into obedience that they will follow the temporary guidance of some old guy who doesn’t know them, only cares about their money, and tells them what to do without consideration of their circumstances. People say such a man is holy; I think such a man should be thrown in jail…

Let me touch on just a few more good points before wrapping up. One important thing this book illustrates is that the Tanners are fairly objective in their criticisms. Even though the Tanners have a clear bone to pick with Mormonism, they don’t distort the truth – there is no need, Mormonism is crazy enough without it. One excerpt from the book clearly illustrates their objectivity, “Many Mormons have claimed that there have never been any changes in the Book of Mormon. Although this is certainly incorrect, some anti-Mormons have gone to the other extreme and tried to make it appear that the Book of Mormon has been completely rewritten. As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text” (p. 131). They do, of course, detail instances where changes are significant, but the quote drives home the point – the Tanners’ criticisms are not overblown or untrue.

Another important contribution of this book is to illustrate that the leadership of the LDS religion have consciously attempted to deceive the general membership, “Because this statement by Joseph Smith contradicted the teaching that the Father and the Son appeared to him in the first vision of 1820, the Mormon church historians altered the words when they reprinted it in later editions of the History of the Church. They changed the wording so that the word “angels” was completely left out” (p. 157). For a long time I was hesitant to believe that willful deception was involved. I think the evidence illustrating as much is now overwhelming. Mormons are, at times, willfully deceived by their leaders.

Finally, and this is a minor issue but important to me, the Tanners make a very good point about Mormon doctrine being flawed in their discussion of the Mormon perspective on the Trinity, “Mormon leaders are unable to explain why God the Father should have a body and yet the Holy Ghost be without one. It is claimed that a body is necessary for eternal progression, yet the Mormon church teaches that the Holy Ghost became a God without one” (p. 190). I came to a similar realization regarding Jehovah, the god of the Hebrew Bible, who Mormons claim is Jesus prior to his birth. If Jesus became a god before receiving a mortal body, why do Elohim’s (god the father’s) other children require a body? This undermines the entire “plan of salvation” from my perspective. In fact, I find this issue so intriguing I’m willing to reward anyone who can come up with a good explanation of this conundrum that validates Mormon doctrine with a $25.00 gift card to Borders Books. There are significant problems with Mormon theology, but because Mormons are discouraged from actually thinking about those problems, no one seems to see them.

There were a number of additional points made by the Tanners that I wanted to mention in this review, but I figured that since the book is available for free online, I’d keep this relatively short. Overall, I think this is a pretty good place for the individual interested in the problems with Mormonism to start their studies. The book is free and, while not the best written book in the world, it is accurate and fairly objective. Unfortunately, there is no real logic to the organization of the book, but the topics are all important. Better books are now available, and I would recommend them over this one (e.g., Grant Palmer’s “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”). But, if you aren’t sure you want to go down this road and don’t want to spend any money on your search, this is a great way to get your feet wet.

Hoge, Dean R. 1981. Converts, Dropouts, Returnees: A Study of Religious Change Among Catholics. New York: Pilgrim Press.

Rating:
7

Summary:
The book reports the findings of a study conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s that was sponsored by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Evangelization. The goal of the study was to explore why and how people convert to and leave the Catholic Church. In addition to looking at converts and dropouts, the research project interviewed “returnees,” or people who returned to active participation in the religion after a period of inactivity. The book begins by explaining how each of these categories was defined for the study:

CATHOLIC – anyone baptized as one; people who attend but are not baptized are not Catholics
ACTIVE – attended mass twice in the past year apart from holidays and celebrations
INACTIVE – did not attend mass at least two times in the past year apart from holidays and celebrations
DROUPOUT – someone who changed from active to inactive in the past three years
RETURNEE – someone who changed from inactive to active in the past three years

To explore the experiences of these people, the author, with the assistance of a number of researchers, interviewed roughly 600 people, 200 from each category from a variety of locations in the United States. The author is quick to point out that there are some likely biases in the study due to the response rates for the given categories. One group was particularly unwilling to participate – young dropouts in their late teens or early twenties (close to 50% refused to participate). That this group was less likely to participate likely indicates the information on that group is even less representative than the information from the other groups. The author notes that, while he tried to develop a representative sample of Catholics that fall into these groups, he does not claim to have achieved anything close to a perfect random sample, though it is likely the findings from this study can be generalized to their corresponding populations.

As the author breaks the findings down by category, I’ll do the same:

Converts -
Hoge presents data on gender breakdowns in his samples tentatively, as the samples are very likely not representative. Even so, he found that 60% of converts were female, 85% were white (10% were black), and that most converts are young adults. Interestingly, the number of black converts to Catholicism had dropped off substantially at the time of the study, a trend the author attributes to a declining penetration of Catholic schools in black neighborhoods and stronger black churches. Most Catholic converts are the result of relationships, primarily through intermarriages (i.e., a non-Catholic marries a Catholic and converts). Most people who convert to Catholicism belonged to a different Christian religion (almost none came from a secular background; see Bibby and Brinkerhoff). Most converts reported positive changes in their family life and personal outlook on life as a result of their conversion. Most participated in their local parish for a while before converting. Many reported changes in personal habits as a result of their conversion (e.g., reduced smoking, drinking, etc.). Few reported changes in their friendships and most attended mass weekly. Many were active in other Catholic groups (e.g., Bible studies) and most said that religion was important in their lives. Finally, most Catholic converts more closely adhered to Catholic teachings – with the exception of abortion – than did life-long Catholics.

Hoge broke the group of converts he interviewed down into three categories based upon the reasons they gave for converting: (1) intermarriage, which was by far the largest reason; (2) family life converts, who had children that were being raised Catholic; and (3) seekers, who were looking for some form of spirituality or looking to have spiritual needs met. Hoge also used a modified Lofland and Stark model for explaining what led these people to convert to Catholicism, “For an understanding of religious change among Catholics, a simplified process model based on Lofland appears most accurate and most useful. It is a flow chart showing three conditions, or decision points, in the process of becoming a Catholic convert. The first condition is that the potential convert have a Christian world view. Past research indicates that few persons who do not have this world view become members of Christian groups. The second is that the person have a felt need, at least minimally, inducing him or her to take Catholic teaching seriously or to participate in a Mass or a group activity… The third condition is a summary of the facilitating relationships and lack of competing relationships discussed by all theorists” (p. 16-18).

Dropouts -
Dropouts from Catholicism also tended to be young and, as noted above, were much less willing to talk to the researchers involved in the study. Many felt the researchers would try to encourage them to return to active participation (a concern that was mostly, but not entirely unfounded). According to Hoge, some of the dropouts felt guilty for having left. Many attended church regularly while growing up and many thought their parents had pressured them to attend too strongly. The strongest reason given for leaving was dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church, though a close second, according to Hoge, was family or interpersonal problems (e.g., teen rebellion). Most experienced increased tension in their family as a result of dropping out, but they also reported more positive outlooks on life and even positive life changes (e.g., reduced smoking, drinking, etc.). Most also changed their friends and many reported that religion was not particularly important in their lives. It is interesting to note that while, “Intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants is the greatest single source of new Catholic converts, it is also the greatest single source of disidentification from Catholicism” (p. 72).

Similar to what he did with converts, Hoge grouped the dropouts into five categories: (1) family-tension dropouts, who left for interpersonal relationship reasons; (2) weary dropouts, who left because they were bored with the religion; (3) life-style dropouts, who left because they were doing things in their personal lives that made them feel guilty attending mass; (4) spiritual-need dropouts, who said the Catholic Church did not meet their personal needs; and (5) anti-change dropouts who left as a result of the relatively progressive changes resulting from Vatican II. Hoge concludes that, “Dropping out by teenagers is so common nowadays that some religious educators wonder if it should not be seen as normal and expected” (p. 84). He certainly isn’t encouraging it, but he is recognizing that it is very common.

Returnees -
Returnees also tended to be young, most returning before the age of 30. They are similar to converts in a lot of ways. Many return for their children and to ensure that they receive a religious education. Some return seeking spiritual fulfillment. Most have had lots of religious training while growing up. Many are in intermarriages to non-Catholics and have kids. They often report that they left because they were bored, but report being more happy as a result of their return.

Hoge also develops a typology of returnees, developing four groups: (1) marriage life returnees, who return as a result of intermarriages; (2) family life returnees, who return for their kids; (3) guilt-feeling returnees who return because they feel guilty for having left; and (4) seekers, who feel a spiritual need. One important point to make regarding all of these typologies is that the categories are not mutually exclusive. In most cases people reported multiple motivations that led them to return. I point this out here because Hoge makes a special point of noting that for returnees it was very common for them to report both motivations 2 and 4 (or 1 and 4). Finally, the number of returnees is unknown, but it is less than the number of dropouts, as there are a significant number of people dropping out of religious life. Hoge mentions that another researcher, Roozen (1980), found that about half of dropouts return at a later point, meaning half never return. This does not mean they don’t join another religion, as many dropouts do (meaning they are technically switchers and not dropouts), but a significant number do give up religious life altogether.

Review:
There are a number of reasons to like this book. First, it is pretty up front about its biases, though it does tend to subtly place them in the text in surprising places (more on this below). Even so, it does not hide the fact that the study was sponsored by a religious group and that the goal of the group is to facilitate both member retention and growth. The final two chapters are explicitly application oriented, meaning they tie the findings of the study into Catholic practice and make recommendations for Priests and Catholics based on the findings. The last chapter is actually written by a Catholic Bishop who also outlines the goals of the National Conference of Bishops regarding conversion and retention. So, while the book has specific, non-objective goals, it is up front about what they are.

The other thing I really like about this book is that it does not try to overgeneralize from its findings. It is quick to point out its failings and biases and limits the generalizability as a result. The author doesn’t hide that there were problems getting people to participate and that those problems were specific to certain groups. He also doesn’t claim that the sample is random and representative, even though it is likely pretty representative of these populations.

Finally, I think the book is generally very informative. It includes an introductory chapter on the history of Catholicism in the U.S. – emphasizing changes in the 1950s and 1960s – that situates the findings in a historical and sociological context. Also, despite not attempting any particularly complicated analyses, the book draws on a lot of resources to present a pretty clear picture of the state of Catholic growth and decline in the early 1980s. Two findings in this vein are worth mentioning. First, Hoge notes that the number of conversions per 1,000 Catholics in the U.S. has declined since 1950. In 1950 it was 4.3 per 1,000, in 1979 that number had dropped to 1.6. That is a very low rate of conversion. Unfortunately, no corresponding statistics are given for the number dropping out, but that data would be very difficult to put together. The author also notes the breakdown of Catholics by ethnicity, something I found particularly intriguing, “The largest group is probably the Hispanics, comprising about 20% to 25% (although this is only a guess), followed by the Italians, making up about 18%. The Irish are about 15% and the Germans are about 14%. The Polish are about 10% and the French (including French Canadians) about 9%. Finally, the English are about 3%, the blacks about 2%, and a11 others about 6%” (p. 25). I wasn’t aware that even in the 1980s Hispanics made up the majority of Catholics in the U.S. I find that very interesting.

There are two problems with the book, both related to the inherent biases of writing this book with the agenda of supporting the Catholic cause. The first is the periodic display of bias, especially when the book recounts the stories of individuals who have left the religion. In the chapters where he develops his typologies, Hoge also provides excerpts from the interviews that illustrate the different categories. After one example of a dropout who had left as a result of engaging in “immoral” behavior (she had an affair with a married man), Hoge says the following, “She would be helped by a trusting relationship with a spiritual adviser or counselor. Even our interviewer for this study helped her gain insight during a single interview. If somehow she could be reconciled with the church, it would be an occasion of great joy” (p. 116). I don’t disagree that the interviewee seemed to be distraught as a result of her affair, but there are other means of resolving those problems, including irreligious, secular therapists who can help people work through issues. Again, the author is upfront about his biases, but sometimes they are dropped into the otherwise objective discussion when it does not seem appropriate.

The second problem I had with the book is that it didn’t make a point that I think is a more general failing of the literature on religious apostates. You may or may not have noticed that in the descriptions given of each category of people investigated in this study – converts, dropouts, and returnees – every group reported that they had a more positive outlook on life as a result of their decision. It is often argued that dropouts are less happy than religious people. While there is no way to do a direct comparison in this study – the interviewers did not employ a scale – it seems pretty clear to me that, despite the questions being subject to respondent bias and the employment of vague questions, all the groups report that they are happy as a result of their decisions. That would seem to indicate that dropping out does not necessarily result in decreased happiness. Given the abundance of publications arguing that is the case, it would have been nice to see Hoge make mention of this fact.

Overall, this is a pretty good book and is likely a very good resource for Catholic practitioners (i.e., Priests, missionaries, nuns, lay leaders, etc.) who are interested in boosting member retention or in activating members who have slipped into inactivity. Academics who are interested in the topics of conversion, dropping out, and returning will also likely find this book informative, though the information is clearly dated at this point and the author explores very little new theoretical ground. Even so, the book is a quick and engaging read and is worth picking up.