Although the book's information was not a definitive benchmark study, it appears to provide some directionally insightful information with parts appealing to differing audiences.The author seems to be reharvesting data used in a previous Dialogue article (2017) using smaller subgroups. She then combines interview and survey information as an exploratory study. I hope this is a starting point from which more comprehensive research and analysis might emerge.Originally I read the book in hard copy because it was a gift; however, I also purchased the Kindle version to search the text by words and phrases for more detailed analysis. I generally enjoyed the book's narrative and underlying investigation of these sensitive religious questions, while also recognizing the limitations of the study, which the author also identifies and which experienced researchers will notice. Although no research study is ever perfect or complete, several insights of generational differences are shown, some of which might be unique to Millennials. However, these differences might only be reflections of attitudes and behaviors by earlier generations at the same age ranges. Accordingly, careful interpretation of findings likely suggests fewer differences than might be first observed.Some weaknesses of the book compared to the Dialogue article and research in general are (a) the lack of a stated purpose or objectives of the study and book; (b) the lack of a traditional sources cited section at the end listing alphabetically sources used, rather than scattering this information in the chapter notes; (c) not including the actual survey instrument questions or interview discussion guide to provide context and transparency to data-gathering processes; and (d) not identifying significant differences between data table subgroups or showing actual subsample numbers with the percentages.Also of concern was the interview selection process that was likely biased because of convenience sampling and the author's noted changes to the survey questions and approaches over time. It also appears that the linkage of the interviews and the survey was more coincidental than designed or planned.One area I specifically questioned as a researcher as potentially problematic is why their inclusion criteria question in the last section of the book (p. 237) was worded to specifically exclude individuals (including especially Millennials) who joined the church after they turned 18. It seems if this book was about Millennials, such exclusion was both ill advised and arbitrary. Furthermore, those looking at this filtering question might need to read it several times before knowing which section one might make. As such, a major weakness to this whole study was the wording of this question, which at the very least is confusing but also potentially distracting enough to encourage potential participant from answering and completing the survey. Good survey techniques require that questions be easily understood at about the fifth grade level, which this question was not. This raises a potential concern about the wording, clarity, and understanding of other questions in the survey upon which the book was partially based.Even with these stated weaknesses or limitations, along with those shared by the author, the book's insights are still useful within limits of selection biases and construct ambiguities (murky definitions of variables).Perhaps some additional editing and formatting restructuring might have made the book stronger and more readable; however, the author's engaging writing style proved effective for general purposes.For future such books, I might suggest the author expand her circle of peer reviewers, subject matter experts, and critics to include a wider range or diversity of professionals to avoid confirmation biases and self-fulfilling echo chambers from authors having similar "dogs in the fight."Because religious beliefs and experiences are highly personal and unique by definition, the book's findings are likely not as generalizable to US Mormon church members and former members as suggested. Furthermore, the conflation of Mormon culture in general, varying member perspectives, local lay leader interpretations, and church policy communications were consolidated as representing a unified whole, statements about "the church" misrepresented actual reality because these terms are not synonymous for Mormons or any other faith. On the other hand, many of the issues discussed might also be applicable directionally in general contexts to other religions with strict doctrinal applications.I realize that some of my concerns and issues might be considered technical, but that does not detract from their importance or their implication on the limited value of this study's findings and possible interpretations.I applaud Jana Riess for her efforts in this volume and look forward to hearing more from her future and improved efforts.