Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Ritchie, George G., and Elizabeth Sherrill. 1995. Return from Tomorrow. Revell.

Rating:
1

Summary:
George Ritchie, the main character in the book, is a practicing psychiatrist in Virginia (whether he still is, I am unsure). What makes George special is that he had a ‘return-to-life’ experience, which is the focus of the book. However, the book goes a step beyond just recounting his experience by setting up a scenario in which George has an opportunity to tell his experience to a patient. His patient, an embittered man, has just been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, which initially leads him to even more bitterness. When the patients shows up for a session with George after learning of the terminal diagnosis, George suggests that rather than die embittered, the patient should do his best to come to terms with his family and employer (who are estranged) and with God (who has been dismissed as irrelevant by the patient).

When the patient initially laughs at this suggestion, George proceeds to tell him that he takes the idea of God seriously as the result of a ‘return-to-life’ experience he had years before. This sets the stage for George to recount his experience:

George was in training in Texas during World War II as an enlisted man when he came down with pneumonia. The onset of the pneumonia coincided with George learning he was going to be sent to medical school instead of the front lines because he had a pre-med college background. However, to take advantage of the offer, George had to get to the school by a certain date and the only way he could do that was to get over the pneumonia.

However, the pneumonia got worse instead of better. It developed to the point that George eventually expired but was brought back to life 9 minutes later with an injection of adrenaline to his heart. The main point of the book is what happened during those 9 minutes.

George talks about leaving his body and traveling in spirit form. He first travels solo until realizing that he is disembodied and dead. Once he realizes this he encounters Christ, who is depicted as a brilliant white light. Christ then takes him around the spirit world, showing him what can happen if he doesn’t give himself to Christ and what can happen if he does. He shows him hell, which is depicted as spirits who are enslaved by their sins and addictions in this life as well as a veritable battlefield of spirits who can’t hurt each other but insist on trying anyway. The lower realm of heaven is depicted as a beautiful university engaged in scientific study. George is given just a glimpse of the highest realm of heaven, which is depicted as a glowing city of light.

All this supposedly happens during the 9 minutes that George was dead. At the end of the 9 minutes, Christ takes him back to his body as he is being brought back to life by the doctors. Interestingly, the experience doesn’t immediately change his life. First, George has to realize that Christ can only work in your life if you focus on helping others rather than focusing on yourself. Much of this motivation plays into George’s desire to work as a psychiatrist.

The result of George telling his patient this story is that the patient does change his life before he dies.

Review:
The book isn’t superbly written, but neither is it atrocious. It’s written at a mid-range level where pretty much anyone that can read could understand it. The descriptions in the book (of heaven, hell, spirits, etc.) aren’t stunning or memorable. They work to evoke the bare minimum of imagery, but don’t really force you into what is happening.

As for the actual story, the biggest problem I had, which I’m sure most skeptics would have, was the very basis for the story. The argument employed to illustrate the veracity of George’s experience was very weak. The author claims that he knows it was real because it “was the most entirely real thing that’s ever happened to me” (p. 16). Unfortunately, I wouldn’t consider this evidence. There are a number of alternative hypothesis which are much more probable than an actual out-of-body experience. For instance, George had fainted before expiring and was comatose for several days afterward. It is highly likely (from both a scientific perspective and using Occam’s Razor) that the entire experience was a dream that took place while he was unconscious. By claiming it felt real he is not offering any evidence other than his personal witness of something that happened to him while he was unconscious. As with all other ‘return-to-life’ experiences, I think the best and most parsimonious explanation is simply the firing of neurons in the brain. Thus, though the story is kind of an interesting version of how one person envisions the afterlife, I’m inclined not to believe that what he claims happened did happen.

But aside from whether the story actually occurred, as the author claims, there are several additional points I found noteworthy. At one point the author claims he saw the light of Christ in a Jew (a man who survived a concentration camp in Germany). Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on Judaism, but I know enough to know that Jews don’t believe in Christ as their savior. If the man was a Jew, must what George saw be something other than the light of Christ, like, perhaps, a caring and considerate person who was concerned about the welfare of others? Unfortunately, George doesn’t seem to pick up on this point.

Additionally, there was one line (and yes, I’m aware that I’m getting a bit nitpicky here) that really bothered me. George, who eventually capitalizes on both his delusional experience and the gullibility of Americans (by saying ‘capitalize’ I don’t mean to imply he made money, simply that he ‘took advantage of’), decides to share his experiences with a number of groups. He describes this decision as follows, “And it must again have been His timing: I who could never string two words together found myself talking to youth groups, clubs, churches, anyone who would listen to the message that God is love, and all else is hell” (p. 121). The part that really got me was the very end, that ‘God is love, and all else is hell.’ If you think about this, it’s somewhat akin to the phrase, ‘If you ain’t a cowboy, you ain’t shit.’ The implication of the cowboy phrase is that if you are a cowboy, you are shit. With the ‘God is love’ phrase, George Ritchie is saying that everything that is not God is hell. This would include relationships, humans, science, this planet, the Bible, religion… just about everything. The only thing that is love, according to him, is god. Thus, whatever god is not, is hell (including everything that god may have created according to religions, including the religions themselves). As an agnostic/atheist, I found this notion to be particularly disturbing as the only role god plays in my life is as a position against which I argue. And as I choose not to recognize the existence of god, then by default, George Ritchie is saying that everything in my life is hell. Well, I disagree. I have a pretty good life and god doesn’t have a part in it (I know, I know, someone is bound to say that he does even if I don’t believe in him; to you I say ‘you’re welcome to your opinion’).

Overall, I’m sure individuals that believe in a life after death will find comfort in this book. I, personally, found it interesting to read, but probably just because I find almost everything I read interesting. If you look at the book from a believer’s perspective, it makes several good points, namely, that a divine experience doesn’t automatically result in a divine individual. I often wish more Christians would take that advice, as they might act more civilly and humanely and less self-righteously ‘Christ-like.’ Anyway, it might also be interesting for the non-believer, but only to see what believer’s use for their evidence of the supernatural. I’m not inclined to see a dream as evidence for the existence of god, but I’m sure some do. I wish them the best, but also wish they would find a better way to occupy their time; like making the world a better place rather than focusing on the glory of next world.

Kaser, Richard T. 1995. Runes in Ten Minutes. Harper Perennial.

Rating:
3

Summary:
Just make sure you are aware of what you are buying

This book explains a variant, occult/pseudoscientific method of having questions answered, similar to Tarot, Palm Reading, or Fortune Tellers.

The book does teach you how to read runes in 10 minutes, but that is because reading runes is really just a game of chance combined with self-deceit.

Here’s my version of ‘Runes in 10 Seconds’: (1) Put a bunch of Scrabble tiles in a bowl. (2) Ask a question. (3) Pick out a tile and make up whatever answer you want to your question based upon the tile you picked out.

The difference between my version and R.T. Kaser’s is that mine uses Scrabble pieces and Kaser’s uses archaic runes, though he does say you can substitute Scrabble pieces and get the same results (it’s on p. ix if you don’t believe me). And, in a nutshell, that’s the book!

Review:
If you believe that using runes to answer questions is a good way to get answers, then this is probably a good book for you. Since I don’t believe there is any power or magic or whatever you want to call it (mana) behind the runes, I don’t plan on using the book for anything more than a party favor when I run out of other games to play (or maybe a coaster). I bought the book during a phase when I was interested in occult religions. I’m finally getting around to reading it and, niftily, it only took me ten minutes. I’ve already spent more time on this review than on reading the book :)

I should point out two additional things. First, Kaser does offer some additional information and guides for interpretation, but it all seemed kind of arbitrary to me, so you’re probably just as well making up whatever answer you want as you are using his guides. Second, there is a little bit of history on runes, but since Kaser doesn’t actually reference anyone, I’m not sure I believe him.

Johnson-Choong, Shelly. 1995. A Light to Come Home by: A Novel. Covenant Communications Inc.

Rating:
1

Summary:
Where’s the conflict?

Micah and Jessa are best friends, in large part due to Jessa’s intervention in Micah’s teenage alcoholism (related in the prequel). But now that they are out of high school and Micah is back on the ‘straight and narrow’ path toward exaltation (they are both righteous Mormons), they are going separate ways. Micah has received his mission call to the ‘Southern States’ mission and Jessa is going to BYU-Idaho (a.k.a. Ricks College).

Micah, who turned to drinking to cope with his parents divorce, is contacted by his father, Monty, who is now living in Savannah, Georgia. Monty is dying from liver cancer, which is attributed to his alcoholism. Micah, believing that he is in the ‘Southern States’ mission as a result of God’s divine will, is now able to get to know and help his father in the last 6 months of his life as the cancer is terminal.

Meanwhile, Jessa has met a returned missionary at school named Connor who appears to the be man of her dreams. But all isn’t what it seems as it turns out Connor is wife shopping. But not just any wife will satisfy Connor, he has to have the most beautiful and talented one out there. He believes Jessa is the pick of the litter at BYU-Idaho and proposes to her. But when he arrives in Oregon (where Micah and Jessa are from) to meet Jessa’s family, he also meets Jessa’s nemesis from her ward, who happens to be even more beautiful than Jessa. This leads Connor to call off the wedding, which breaks Jessa’s heart even though all of her family and friends had warned her that Connor wasn’t right for her.

The book ends renewing the notion that Micah and Jessa might eventually get together.

Review:
This has to be the most unengaging book I have ever read. The only reason I read the entire book was because I was interested in the propagandizing techniques employed by the author to reinforce the Mormon ‘program’. Let me explain. As is the case with most religions, but is especially true of strict, exclusivistic religions, the religion has to socially construct a mentality that reinforces their particular worldview. For Mormons, this mentality includes a number of factors, such as the notion that God’s hand can be seen in everything and that obedience (often euphemistically referred to as ‘faith’) is the ultimate goal. I think Judith Freeman was right to point out in a talk about her novel ‘Red Water’ (Sunstone Symposium 2003), that religions that get their adherents to blindly follow their precepts are scary.

The Mormon worldview of blind obedience (which isn’t true for all Mormons, just most of them) is reinforced in ‘A Light to Come Home By’ in innumerable ways. For instance, in describing Micah’s Missionary Training Center (MTC) experience, the author says, “Jessa knew that Micah didn’t resent the tight restrictions. In fact, knowing Micah as she did, she was sure that he thrived on the schedule” (p. 16). Most individuals that have lived through the Mormon MTC experience will admit that the ‘tight restrictions’ have one, primary purpose – to guarantee that the missionaries that make it through this total institution (see Goffman 1961) will be obedient. The author turns a total institution-like experience into a positive, claiming it is a rewarding experience that will actually make people ‘thrive’. Well, if you define ‘thriving’ as mindlessly adhering to ridiculous, socially constructed rules, then yes, it does accomplish that end. But if you define ‘thrive’ as reaching one’s potential, the MTC falls short, very short. So, the book is Mormon propaganda… but that’s not its biggest problem.

The biggest problem of the book is that there is virtually no conflict. Generally stories use the first part to introduce the characters but by ¼ of the way into the book, it’s time for some conflict to erupt which will drive the rest of the story. I kept looking for the conflict that was going to drive this story and only began to see the possibility of conflict on page 120, which is over half of the way through the book. Up to that point, the author has a very bizarre habit of opening chapters by resolving conflict (see Chapter 9 for an example of this), which is actually quite undermining if you really want to keep your readers interested.

But the conflict problem only gets worse as the author begins to introduce what she believes to be conflict. The conflict in this novel includes two things. First, Micah’s father refuses to listen to the missionary discussions (one of the two twists I wasn’t actually expecting; kudos to Monty Stevenson!). Second, Jessa is sort of deceived by Connor, (kudos to Connor for leading on such a gullible sap so well!). If you were to create a conflict continuum, with 1 being virtually no conflict and 10 being the endangerment of the world (or for Mormons, the endangerment of your testimony J), the conflict in this novel never gets past a 2. It’s as if the author has never experienced any real pain in her life, so her sheltered mind reaches out as far as it can to create what she believes to be ‘severe’ scenarios – a father that won’t convert to Mormonism and an unfaithful boyfriend. This has to be the most menial and ridiculous conflict I have ever read about. This reeks of emotional superficiality. Give me Levi Peterson’s ‘Backslider’ any day over this inept drivel.

Having highlighted the biggest problem, let me turn to just a few of the smaller problems. First, in keeping in line with the Mormon ‘program’, from which the author never really deviates (no wonder it sold in Mormondom), the author then proceeds to encourage a number of additional behaviors. For instance, Micah loves his companion(s). Out of the 15 or so companions I had on my mission, I really liked about 3 of them. I got along well with another 7 or 8. And fought like cats and dogs with 3 of them. The idea that Micah never has a problem with his companion isn’t based in reality. The author also has a tendency to romanticize everything. If the conflict borders around a 1 for the majority of the book, the romance hovers around an 8. If you can imagine it, it’s almost like reading a trashy romance novel without the sex. I think the author would do well to reread 2 Nephi 2:11 which presents the idea that there ‘must needs be opposition in all things.’ If everything is without conflict or is always romantic, there is nothing to compare it to. Just because you want a perfect world doesn’t mean reading about one is interesting. It’s not.

The author is also remarkably demeaning to both Southerners and people that like to drink alcohol. This is how Micah relates his initial impression of the South, “He had never seen so many trailer parks in all of his life. It seemed as if every citizen in South Carolina either lived in one or owned one that housed someone else” (p. 33). She also portrays alcohol as though it were the most evil thing on the face of the planet. Why couldn’t Micah’s escape have been drugs or skateboarding or any number of things? I’ll tell you why, because Mormons aren’t allowed to drink alcohol. What better way to reinforce that message (and simultaneously guarantee an audience for your novel) than to demonize alcohol consumption?

The author also reveals her ignorance when talking about a number of other subjects. For instance, she describes the South as ‘humid’ compared to Dallas, TX, which she considers to be dry. If she had taken just a couple of seconds to look up weather patterns for Dallas she would have realized it’s average year-round humidity is 71%. Average humidity in South Carolina is 54%. She also describes a move from Las Vegas to Oregon as ‘culture shock’ (p. 20). Having been to both, I’m fairly certain no one would experience ‘culture shock’ from such a move. This author really doesn’t have a clue. Finally, the author mentions a car accident (that may have taken place in the previous novel) in which Micah’s mother and brother had their legs crushed. As a result, “Both of them had been in the hospital for over a week, healing from shattered legs” (p. 11). One whole week for shattered legs?

I guess, I should also mention that the writing itself is juvenile. The majority of the author’s metaphors and descriptions are cliché and, frankly, not very interesting. However, this could be seen as a positive considering the ideal audience for this book – 11 year-old Molly Mormons. If you actually want to read an engaging, interesting story and get a feel for what Mormonism is really like, I would highly suggest Levi Peterson’s ‘Backslider’ instead of this novel. Even though the author would probably like to believe that her romanticized, propagandist, ‘program’ following novel mirrors reality, what she has really done is presented a vision of the ideal life that will only appeal to those that are delusional enough to belief that these things are ideal.

Poelman, Anne Osborn. 1995. The Simeon Solution: One Woman’s Spiritual Odyssey. Deseret Book Co.

Rating:
5

Summary:
This is a pretty good book for what it intends to do. In the Introduction, the author describes the books intent:

“Please make no mistake about it: This book is written squarely from the center of the Latter-day Saint mainstream. If you are searching for a feminist perspective, look elsewhere. If you hope to find a closet Church rebel, you’ll be gravely disappointed.
“If what you really want is the perspective of an LDS professional woman who believes that quiet accomplishments speak volumes more than strident polemics, a person who know that Church members aren’t perfect yet is totally committed to the Church, and who trusts implicitly in the eternal perspective, read on. This book is for you.”

With that said, let me summarize:
The book is a faith-promoting Mormon book that offers a ‘solution’ to not knowing the answers to everything. Thus, The Simeon Solution:

1. Trust the Lord.
2. Learn to recognize and heed spiritual promptings.
3. Focus on the fundamentals.
4. Stand firm in the faith.
5. Be patient.
6. Adopt the eternal perspective.
7. Keep the commandments.
8. Know the Church is true.

That is what the author offers as The Simeon Solution or the way to stay in the Church despite problems one might have with elements of the Church (I think she is really thinking about people’s problems with Mormon doctrine/theology, but that is just my take on it).

Review:
Because she presents her purpose from the beginning and doesn’t try to hide it, I think Anne Osborn Poelman does a good job writing this book. The stories are for the most part engaging, though some are overtly cliché.

With that said, I must admit that I adamantly disagree with a lot of the points in the book. Of course, I probably would seeing as how I am writing this review from the perspective of an individual that was Mormon but decided to leave for the very reasons that she is trying to get people to cope with using her ‘solution’. Throughout the book the author relegates doctrinal and historical questions to the realm of the ‘unknowable’. I think this is a common approach within Mormonism (and probably many religions for that matter). When you don’t have the answer you consider it something that can wait. Where I have a problem with this is that a lot of the things that are relegated to this category within Mormonism do have answers, they just aren’t the ones that Mormons hope for. Because of that, Mormons would rather ignore the answers that academics offer and instead follow the leadership of the Church blindly.

The author also reifies every aspect of the traditional Mormon orthodoxy. She doesn’t seem to have a problem with women not having the priesthood, with women not being in positions of authority, with blacks and the priesthood (an issue that is not dealt with – the author is white), the Mormon oppression of scholarly research, etc. The book is intended to be faith promoting and that is exactly what it does, encourage you to accept the mandates of the Mormon Church.

Overall, if you are a Mormon that has some questions but would prefer to stay an active Mormon, this book would probably be helpful. If you are Mormon and would rather continue to ask questions and not deny the answers that are available, subscribe to Sunstone and/or Dialogue. If you would rather leave, check out www.exmormon.org or www.lds-mormon.org. The book is faith-promoting not question answering.

Moore, R. Laurence. 1995. Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Interesting idea concerning how religions are now more like businesses than classical ‘religions’

The book is a historical analysis of the transition of religions from their earlier form in which they generally were monopolistic and had no need to compete over adherents to their current form in which they are engaged in selling religion and increasing their ‘market share’. The book focuses on the U.S., where this phenomenon occurred. The author rightly argues that this phenomenon is characteristic of the U.S. due to the constitutional separation of church and state, which led to religious pluralism early on. The book focuses on the period between the early 19th and early 20th centuries, the time the author argues when the above outlined transition took place. The focus of the discussion tends to revolve around religious innovators or other individuals who made explicit advances in promoting the advertisement of religion.

Review:
I think the author makes a good point with this book – I believe many religions are better understood these days as entertainers and capitalists hawking wares than as religious educators or drab gatekeepers to heaven. That said, there are a few problems with this book. First, the author could have easily made this point in half the space. Admittedly, this book brings loads of evidence to bear on this issue, which means other researchers should not have to do much more to make this point in the future. But it also means the book gets a bit repetitive in substance if not in content – the same point is made over and over using different historical data.

It should also be noted that while religions in the U.S. do tend to function something like a religious market, the rational choice approach to religion needs to be limited to the religions and not the adherents. Religions may compete for adherents, but the choice to belong to a religion is not understood, at present, to be identical to the choice of buying a car or a refrigerator. Some people are born into specific religions and never question their adherence. Others have powerful emotional conversions that are beyond the explanatory power of rational choice theory. In short, it’s fine to argue that religions are now peddling religion like Hollywood peddles moves, but ‘religious consumers’ don’t behave in the same ways movie consumers do. This point is currently being debated in the sociological study of religion and it may turn out that religious consumers are increasingly approximating the behavior of other consumers, but that debate is far from settled.

My final criticism of the book is that it doesn’t really push theoretical boundaries. The market explanation of high levels of religiosity in the U.S. was being advocated by Rodney Stark, Roger Finke, and others (Iannaccone) in the 1980s (and Peter Berger in the 1960s). While the distinction between religious marketing and religious consumption is an important one, I don’t know that many people would argue against the idea that religious pluralism in the U.S. – leading to religions turning into capitalism-like enterprises – has maintained relatively high levels of religiosity. Perhaps the author’s intent was simply to provide additional evidence toward this end. If that is the case, then he has certainly accomplished his goal. If, however, he was intending to somehow present an alternative or novel approach to understanding religious pluralism in the U.S., I failed to see it.

Overall, this is an engaging book in part because the author writes well but also because he has clearly illustrated instances of religious entrepreneurs developing marketing for religions. The book is a bit too long to keep one’s attention since the primary point is restated in each chapter, but it is hard to argue with the pile of evidence. It is also worth noting that the author does not hide his personal views on religion – he is secular and makes that clear to curb accusations of hidden biases (see p. 3). All in all, this is an excellent treatment of how religions converted to the ideology of capitalism and capitalist marketing to peddle their supernatural goods. Or, to quote Veblen, who is quoted in the book, this work clearly illustrates how religions one-upped other capitalists, “What they [secular capitalists] had not quite mastered was the final untroubled skill with which religious merchants promised much and delivered nothing. Secular advertisers handicapped themselves by feeling it necessary to pass a visible product over the counter” (p. 218).