Under the Banner of Heaven

Rating:
Summary: historical scrutiny
Review: Jon Krakauer is captivating with his unique terminology and phrasing that for many readers draws them into a world of illusion after illusion and facts that seem a bit murky and stretched to make a point that isn't necessarily correct. For professional historians this is dramatizing and flowering; making connections by twisting meanings.

"Under the Banner of Heaven" is interesting, yet frustrating; especially for historians who read a revealing sentence-with an apparently "crucial" idea-and then look immediately for the reference to the footnote in order to qualify the authors claim and use of information. Krakuer never directly references his quotes, accusations, or ideas. He merely mentions in the back that he used a certain book (Sadly, many of the sources in his bibliography are anti-Mormon, or are written by other reporters who lack historical professionalism. Example: Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" is about as anti-Joseph Smith as you get-any professional historian on the subject questions that book because it is a book with a mission and neglects many aspects of his life. In fact Fawn Brodie has been criticized for doing the same thing in a biography of Thomas Jefferson).

Without a reference to Krakauer's sources the reader cannot scrutinize and look more closely at whether or not the person(s) quoted or ideas presented are credible sources with legitimate evidences and facts. Although, Krakauer paints a pretty interesting picture it makes a lot of professional historians who love to look at history objectively a bit skeptical of what he's trying to say. If he were to send this book to a professional historical journal his thesis would never get past the editing board because: 1) he doesn't directly reference; 2) if he did the editors would examine his sources to see if they are true, if they are in context, and what was the bias of the person who made the statement. If there were incongruencies the editors would send Jon Krakauer home and make him rephrase or find a more credible source. It happens all the time in college classes in the history program

Everyone looks at the LDS church with an "aura of suspicion". Reporters believe that it is their duty to reveal and tell the real story in order to reduce the "aura of suspicion". Krakauer, in not properly supporting his claims with footnotes and professional referencing, not only reaffirms and lends weight to the prevailing feeling amongst society that reporting is biased, but he adds even more to the "aura of suspicion" by not being clear and professional. That's sad. What was his vendetta? He thought he was cleverly getting at something. He should have done better research, took the time to reference, and not have been like so many people in the world who go looking for whatever they can that will support their skewed or not so skewed ideas, while neglecting at the same time other ideas that merely expand a person and make them better balanced and reasonable.

Rating:
Summary: Well should we ber surprised
Review: Gee should we be surprised that all the bad reviews are from Mormans? ^They have been hiding behind their "faith" for years, and finally someone has exposed them and what they have been doing for years and now they are trying to make him out to be crazy.Read this book and you will see why people tryed to stop this crazy faith a long time ago.

Rating:
Summary: Here we go...
Review: I am continually amused, and occasionally saddened, by self-proclaimed agnostics who write books about religion and/or religious groups. Typically, the author generally knows very little history of the organization or person he/she is researching, and must rely on - by definition - biased sources for information. But alas, our author seeks no "balance" in reporting - it seems the vast majority of sources used come from vitriolic anti-Mormon literature in the guise of "scholarship" and "impeccable research." One does not learn about authentic Roman Catholicism by reading Voltaire. One does not learn about authentic Mormonism (either modern or historical) by reading this book (perhaps a bad analogy with Voltaire, but it will suffice for purposes of this review).

An interesting quote: "I got a chance to read it. I liked it a lot." That quote comes from none other than the main character in the book - Dan Lafferty. Similarly, should readers who also liked this book be classed with the ilk of Dan Lafferty? It sounds absurd, but that is exactly what the author does when he, by implication, classes Mormons with fundamentalist groups.

Only the truly gullible and ignorant need apply to read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book, well worth the read
Review: Many members of the LDS church believe that if their church is not presented in a happy, shiny, pleasant package, then it's anti-mormon material. What they fail to realize is that their church's history is full of things we don't approve of today, such as violence (like the Mountain Meadows Massacre) and polygamy, and they shun anything the LDS church leadership doesn't approve of. Boyd K. Packer, apostle of the LDS church, even counseled the membership to avoid certain aspects of the church's history, stating "Some things are true that are not very useful." It seems that with this mentality, some people are not prepared to read this book with an open mind, which I feel you'd need to really understand the purpose and meaning of this book.

This book is not anti-mormon, but it does present the history of the LDS church in a relatively non-biased light, and it discusses how the church's teachings have led to extreme fundamentalism, as we've seen in the Lafferty murders. While the initial thrust of the book is about the Lafferty brothers, Mr. Krakauer uncovers what has led them to the point that they had "revelations" to commit murder. Whether you're religious or not, I believe it's important to understand how people can get to this point.

The book is engaging and hard to put down. But don't expect a "true crime" book per se, because it's not. If you're interested in religious fundamentalism, this book is for you.

Rating:
Summary: Magazine Article Masquerading as a Book
Review: Krakauer is a well-known and very well-liked author, so I imagine that "Under the Banner of Heaven" will probably sell. But I find myself wondering if that would be the case if the author was a relatively unknown person.

Why do I say this? Well, in my opinion the mark of a truly great "true crime" book is one which has one of these qualities:

1. a mystery about who did it
2. a mystery about why they did it
3. a struggle to bring the murderer(s) to justice
4. a courtroom battle to prove the guilt of the murderer(s)

A good example of this is Joe McGuiness's "Fatal Vision." There, you had a horrific crime, a genuine question about whether the perpetrator was a mob of Manson-inspired hippies or a Princeton-educated, all-American doctor who happened to be a Green Beret, a very enigmatic motive for the murder, and a decade-long struggle to bring the killer (the doctor) to justice that culminated in a dramatic courtroom showdown.

"Under the Banner of Heaven" has none of this. Yes, the murders were horrific. But right off the bat, we know who did it. We also know why --the murderers were religious fanatics. They were caught, put on trial, and convicted in due course. That's it. There's no great mystery to any of it.

This isn't to say that the book doesn't have some merit. The chapter dealing with the murders is profoundly disturbing. The chapters dealing with the weird culture of Mormon polygamy were also interesting. So was some of the material about the founding of Mormonism (I had no idea it was so tinged with fanaticism in its early days!). But you get the impression that Krakauer was putting everything but the kitchen sink into the book to puff it up to book length. I got that distinct impression when he devoted a lengthy passage about a mass murder that took place over a century ago. What's the point?

So people who are interested in this type of the thing would probably do better to save their money and check "Under the Banner of Heaven" from the local library. It really isn't worth the 20+ dollars it will cost you in a bookstore. Either do that or buy it used.

Rating:
Summary: Violent Religious Faith
Review: Because one of the other customer reviewers complained that this book does not sufficiently cover the history of Mormonism, I think someone who reads that before they read the book will get the wrong impression. When I read the book, I understood it to be a study of violent religious fundamentalism and where that comes from.

I saw in this book: a look at violent acts committed by religious fundamentalists who think they are doing God's will, a study of Mormon fundamentalism in order to better understand the violent act and actors,and a study of mainstream Mormanism in order to better understand Mormon fundamentalism. There's more going on than just Mormon history deliberately.

One reason this book hooked me is that I couldn't help but compare it to another engrossing book, _Princess_, that I read a few years ago (before 9/11) about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. That plight is here (and in Canada and Mexico), too.

This book is, in my opinion, far superior and more riveting than Krakauer's other books. I expect to see _Under the Banner of Heaven_ on the NYT bestseller list soon.

Rating:
Summary: Less than Accurate
Review: The content of this book is less than accurate and does not delve deeply or fairly enough into the complete history of early and current "Mormonism". If you are well studied in this subject you'll notice there are numerous factual faults and obvious over-generalizations. Mike Otterson, the director for the LDS Church's media relations has said "...Krakauer unwittingly puts himself in the same camp as those who believe every German is a Nazi, every Japanese a fanatic, and every Arab a terrorist." Krakauer admittedly does not understand religious devotion and thus has not and cannot handle this complicated subject.

Rating:
Summary: Five stars isn't enough
Review: Bravo, what an eye-opener. It's about time someone took an honest look at fundmentalism in our country.

Rating:
Summary: Krakaur Struggles
Review: I have generally been a fan of Krakaur in the past but he has certainly strayed from his area of expertise. The majority of his facts are not only false, but have been well refuted for the past 100 years. It appears that he has pulled information from out-dated, one-sided anti-mormon books.

Most disturbing of all is that he not only portrays a negative and false image of Mormonism, but attacks the fundamentals of all religeons. A self-proclaimed agnostic, it is painfully obvious he does not, nor ever could, understand religeious devotion.

Rating:
Summary: a must read
Review: An honest, deep probing into a very sad story.