Under the Banner of Heaven

Rating:
Summary: informative and timely
Review: i stopped through salt lake city a few years back to do a little geneology and try & satisfy my curiosity about the history of the mormon church. it was a somewhat fruitful trip, but i was left wondering what a non-church mormon history would have to say. this is it.

to be exact i think this book merits 4.5 stars; the only criticism i have is that there is very little included about the motivation for the U.S. government's harassment of the church. (maybe they were justified, i don't know-- i'll have to find out elsewhere.) was it because the LDS was too radical in its pursuit of polygamy, or was it wholly in response to violence committed by members of the church? i've always been curious about this. was the gov't position based on some kind of pragmatism or was it more ideological?

overall, i highly recommend this book. as with his other books, krakauer digresses freely from the tale at hand to present salient chunks of historical background. as someone who takes more than a passing interest in how history relates to current events, i find this style to be very edifying-- and satisfying. if you're one who doesn't like distractions & digressions you may not enjoy this book as much as i did.

krakauer has quite a penchant for taking a modern news story and parlaying it into a keen inquiry into larger philosophical issues. keep up the good work jon.

Rating:
Summary: Weekend Warrior Half-way up Everest
Review: I'm reasonably fit: I hike, I jog sometimes. Yet I get the impression, from Krakauer's earlier book, Into Thin Air, that he would not advise me to climb Mount Everest, and from Into the Wild, that he might warn me against living off the land in Alaska.

Krakauer is reasonably fit, intellectually. He's passionate, curious, and a great story-teller. He has studied early Mormonism, and the fanatics whose murders he chronicles, quite well, despite complaints by mainstream Mormons below. (What else can they say? "Official" Mormonism is a strange hybrid: the classic 19th Century blend of guns, girls, gods, and snake oil, evolving in the direction of orthodoxy, but required by corporate necessity to deny both the pagan nature of the original, and the radical nature of changes required.)

The story is bloodcurdling and somber, and fits with Krakauer's other books well. Why do people do crazy things? What weakness besets mortal man, betraying us to unnatural risks and unnecessary deaths? Are we mad, or is it the logic of the human situation that drives us to it? There's a bit of Shakespeare in Krakauer. The fact that the stories he tells are true-life, makes it all the more interesting.

But religion is even more complex and dangerous than ice falls or grizzly bears. Krakauer tries fitfully to parlay his knowledge of Mormonism into an assault on the summit of larger religions, about which he demonstrates little knowledge. To assume that all religions are like the one you happen to study, is the ultimate Weekend Warrior fallacy: "Climb one mountain, and you've climbed them all."

My view is that study of "fundamentalist" Mormonism does shed light on "revolutionary religions": "classical" Mormonism, Islam, Marxism, Peoples' Temple. It is of less value in trying to understand Advetic or Buddhist thinking, (though there are similar cults in Asia) and only confuses the issue in dealing with Confucianism or Christianity.

When Krakauer yields to the impulse to generalize, he often gets it badly wrong. He assumes that religious faith is by definition blind, unrelated to evidence. But most religions in fact offer evidence, good or bad, for their claims. Christian thinkers, including first-rate scholars, never tire of explaining that reason supports faith. Krakauer has obviously never come across any of those explanations, or the evidence given to back it up.

"There are some ten thousand extant religious sects -- each with its own cosmology, each with its own answer for the meaning of life and death. Most assert that the other 9,999 not only have it completely wrong, but are instruments of evil, besides."

This is theology with a butcher's knife. In fact, most religions do NOT claim all the others are "completely wrong." Buddhists agree with Hindus about reincarnation and karma. Islam affirms Jesus as a prophet. Christianity accepts the Jewish Bible, and affirms Muslim faith in God, Taoist faith in the power of the weak, Confucian love of kindness and loyalty, and much that is valuable in Hinduism and Buddhism -- as great Christian thinkers have never tired of pointing out. Actually, it is atheism that assumes all religions are mainly wrong about all the most important facts.

"The impetus for most fundamentalist movements . . . is a yearning to return to the mythical order and perfection of the original church."

Perhaps. But doesn't it matter if the "original church" was founded by a polygamist who conquered the Arabian peninsula with the sword, a treasure-hunting con man, a monk who withdraws from society, or a person who healed the sick, forgave his enemies, and died for his disciples? Joseph Smith was a scoundrel; that doesn't mean Confucius, Buddha, or St. John were. Defining fundamentalism as "return to the original" does not join, it divides, religions, because the originals differ.

It is vital in our day to try to understand religions both respectfully and honesty. I think Krakauer tries to do this, in regard to Joseph Smith and latter-day imitators. He does not, however, squarely face the vast, uber-alpine chasms and icefalls that separate the specificities of human religions. Understandably, perhaps, since to question the convention that all religions are basically the same has become the ultimate heresy. But isn't that all the more recent to go after it? Krakauer climbs a minor peak in the Utah Rockies, and gets a touch of altitude sickness. If he wants to challenge the truly Himalayan fallacies of our day, he should chuck the relativistic cliches and other a priori dogmas like so many bags of twinkies, and go into serious intellectual training.

Still, within these limitations, this dramatic, passionate, and tragic tale fascinates, teaches me a lot about Mormonism, and, like Krakauer's other books, gave me a great deal of food for thought.

[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: Under the Banner of Heaven
Review: I am seeing a great flaw in every review that is negative of this book. The reviewers are showing that they have not read the book. The book says that the LDS church and the FLDS did not kill in 1980. But their doctrine STATES that this action of having your own revelation is what they believe in. So it is on your own that you must make this conclusion that the LDS, deny it if they will is responsible for these extremist.
This book is about Mormonism, denied by most readers, because Doctrine and Covenants 132 is still in their book.
And as far has the LDS church not killing people...do you know any of the history of Utah and so forth of the church? This book even talks about characters like Porter Rockwell. The man was a savage! Or how about Mountain Meadow Massacre...
There is to large a number of reviews here that are attacking this book, and it is based of their own conclusions reached by being infuriated that someone would write an unbiased history that is has truth to it and doesn't hide it in a mountain.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent read
Review: This book was a fascinating read. It not only describes a murder of two innocent people and the aftermath, but is very in depth about fundamental mormonism and polygamy. I could not put this book down.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book.. somewhat boring
Review: This book was a good description of FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS... not todays STREAMLINE MORMONS (whatever those really are).

I enjoyed this book and couldnt put it down. It got boring in parts where he tried to explain the family histories. (Evangeline chapter etc). I really enjoyed learning more about my own (soon to be former) religion. Many things that I did not know, or knew very little about.

Overall if you want to learn about MORMONS, do not read this book. If you want to learn about freaky FUNDAMENTALISTS then read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Read it between the lines...
Review: Hmmmm...have some of these harsh critics actually read the book?

I knew nothing about Mormonism before I read this story. But by the last hundred pages, I was thinking very emphatically to myself that Mr. Krakauer took GREAT PAINS to emphasize that the devil here were these two murderers, neither the Mormon religion itself nor even fundamentalist Mormons (although the latter are portrayed as being less blameless).

I did not pick up this book intending to come away with a comprehensive history of Mormonism. I did not pick up this book intending to read a true crime story.

No, contrary to some "misled" individuals who claim to have read this book, I picked up this book intending to read EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS ON THE FRONT COVER, Einsteins. It states right on the cover, and I directly quote:

"On July 24, 1984, a woman and her infant daughter were murdered by two brothers who believed they were ordered to kill by God. The roots of their crime lie deep in the history of an American religion practiced by millions..."

What does this sentence mean to you? It doesn't say, "The Evils of the LDS Church" or "...two Mormon brothers..." For anyone reading those critiques that so harshly pan the book because it "wasn't what they expected," please read the quote that I have written here, and then tell me what you expect to read. I promise you that what you read into that quote is what you will get when you read this. These brothers' roots were indeed in LDS...that does not mean that LDS is wicked, and I never once saw it that way, even without any prior conceptions about LDS.

And as for you critics who think that Mr. Krakauer is biased because he is agnostic, I find it hard to believe that you could forgive him his well-researched and well-balanced, conscientious manuscript, no matter WHAT his spiritual values. If he was Jewish, you'd find something "biased" about that. And ditto if he was Lutheran, Catholic, or Mormon himself. No matter what religion he was, because he's writing about religion, you'd say he was biased.

Of course, the only "unbiased" person is the completely ignorant one. Everyone who learns something has an opinion about it. I dare any critic to tell me otherwise. But as far as this book is concerned, Mr. Krakauer has taken the utmost care to make the condemnation of this crime of which he writes as narrow and as specific as possible.

Mr. Krakauer points out to us time and time again that these are resentful, looney-tunes, fundamentalist, ex-communicated-Mormon brothers who murdered their sister-in-law. So unless you are a resentful, looney-tunes, fundamentalist, ex-communicated-Mormon brother who wants to murder their sister-in-law, know in advance that this book does not set out to offend you.

Read it to learn, not to judge, and ye shall be the wiser.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Study of Mormon Extremism
Review: An excellent book on Mormon fundamentalism and Mormon history. Some have complained about it jumping around too much, but I feel that all the topics relate well to each other and help the reader understand the roots of Mormonism and some of the problems that have resulted from its more radical followers.

The chapters about the Lafferty brothers' descent into fundamentalism, and their terrible crime, are real page-turners. Also riveting are the first-hand accounts of those involved in the polygamist fundamentalist cults.

The sections on Mormon history are very educational. Krakauer has done an impressive amount of research here. I had researched some of his sources prior to reading this book, and I found that his writing is accurate according to them. As expected, some Mormons are offended by this book. It is not an anti-Mormon attack. Mormon history contains many events that are troubling to church members--but that doesn't make them anti-Mormon fabrications. I applaud Krakauer for writing about things as they happened, and having the courage to deal with the backlash.

Historical facts are not judged true or false based on whether or not they offend some people. Those of the mainstream Mormon faith who criticize Krakauer for painting a negative picture of church history should recognize that the Mormon church portrays a filtered, biased view of history that is highly favorable to them. These events happened, but the Mormon church is not honest with its members about them. And that's not Krakauer's (nor any other historian's) fault.

Rating:
Summary: A Little Unfocused, But Still Fascinating
Review: Once again, Krakauer has taken a situation that's slightly outside of most people's experiences and made it accessible. This time, he portrays the actions of Ron and Dan Lafferty, who believed they were told by God to slay their sister-in-law. His energetic prose brings to life the events and influences that led these men to murder. While the reader may not be able to fully justify the Laffertys' reasons for their actions, one will be able to understand how they came to their conclusions.

Although the book is interesting, it does suffer from a lack of focus. Krakauer admits in the author's remarks that he had another book about Mormons in mind before writing Under the Banner of Heaven. This other book rears its head from time to time in the background material on Mormonism. Even though the material is informative, it prevents this book from having the laser-like focus that made Krakauer's other works so memorable.

Overall, Under the Banner of Heaven is worth reading. Krakauer does a good job detailing Mormonism's history and the sad facts of the Lafferty case. It's in his attempt to link the two that the book comes up slightly short. While still having merit, Under the Banner of Heaven would've been better had Krakauer focused on the present and left history for another book.

Rating:
Summary: flawed thesis
Review: You don't have to be a member of the LDS faith to recognize the flaw in Krakauer's thesis. To suggest that a belief in God or religion is responsible for the violence in this world is naive and dangerous.

His thesis is not limited to fundamental Mormonism, he includes all religious belief in his narrow view.

One might be able to make a case for orthodox ideology being a danger to world peace, but religion is certainly less to blame for violence committed in the name of dogmatic belief than say Nazism, Communism, or any other "ism" that binds a group of people together in common belief.

More people suffered and died at the hands of regimes based on Godless ideology in the last century than in all of the conflicts of previous centuries combined.

Mr. Krakauer needs to go back to the drawing board on this one. The reasons for the violence in this world is something that we should all be concerned with, but Krakauer's thesis casts a very small net.

The real causes for suffering in this world can be detected in the person of Ron Lafferty, but it isn't due to any real religious belief. More likely it is due to the blow to his ego that was suffered when his finances fell apart and his wife left him than from any belief that God spoke to him through his computer. The loss of control over his life and the loss of face that he experienced are the reasons for his violence. He merely used God and his self-proclaimed beliefs as an excuse to act out his violent behavior and convince his equally affected brother to go along.

Hopefully the talented Mr. Krakauer will return to his thesis next time with a wider scope.

Rating:
Summary: A Mormon Who Loved This Book
Review: As a Mormon, I know I'm wading into dangerous territory - especially as a Mormon who liked Krakauer's book. I obviously read this book from a very different perspective than most of the other Mormons who have posted reviews.

Let me briefly sum up this book, then explain why I enjoyed it so much. Krakauer tackles the messy world of religious extremism by focusing on two ex-Mormons, brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty. The Lafferty's were active Mormons who fell away from their faith when they embraced ultra-conservatism and "Mormon fundamentalism", aka, polygamy. They became part of a group called "The School of the Prophets". After the Lafferty brothers began refusing to pay taxes, register their vehicles, and even force their wives to churn their own butter, Ron Lafferty's wife abandoned him and took their children to Florida.

Shortly thereafter, Ron received a "revelation" from God commanding him to kill Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter, Erica. (Ron blamed Brenda, his sister-in-law, for helping his wife leave him.)

Nothing in this book is as chilling as reading about Ron and Dan Lafferty methodically killing Brenda and Erica, all the while claiming to have been led by God. Throughout the book, Krakauer includes chapters discussing violent episodes from Mormon history as a way to help explain where the Lafferty's got some of their ideas.

Why did I love this book? First, I never saw this as an attack on the Mormon faith. In fact, Krakauer doesn't discuss today's Mormon church all that much. He focuses primarily on those on the fringes of Mormonism - particularly "fundamentalists" who practice plural marriage. There are plenty of positive examples of Mormons in Krakauer's book. For starters, two of the people on Ron Lafferty's "removal" revelation were his Stake President (the head of a Mormon diocese), and his bishop's (a congregational leader) wife. These were two people he also blamed for helping his wife leave him. These people had the sense to help Ron's wife escape, and who recognized that the Lafferty's were nuts. And they were not only Mormon, they were Mormon leaders.

I was especially grateful for the natural questions Krakauer raised that might make some uncomfortable. This book forces all religious people to ask the question, "What makes one person's claim of revelation from God valid, and another's nonsense?" Some might argue that God wouldn't command someone to kill a woman and her daughter. Unfortunately, there are dozens of examples from the Bible and Mormon scripture of God commanding someone to commit acts of violence. The question remains, "Why is the Lafferty's claim that God commanded them to kill Brenda Lafferty crazy, while God's commmandment to Abraham and others to kill valid?"

I'm in no way trying to defend the Lafferty's - I believe they are crazy and that in no way did God command them to kill anyone. But Krakauer raises some very important questions that most religious people have probably ignored.

Krakauer also makes it abundantly clear throughout the book that the Lafferty's were on the fringes of Mormonism and had been kicked out of the LDS Church.

I think there are a variety of reasons why most Mormons despise this book. First, it is more accurate than they may have anticipated. Had Krakauer botched several things, they could have simply dismissed it as nonsense. In fact, dozens of "anti-Mormon" books are published every year. Why is this one raising so much ire? Krakauer has clearly touched a nerve. Second, I think people misunderstand Krakauer's intent. This is not meant to be a comprehensive history of Mormonism. Krakauer uses selective history to prove his point that faith can lead to violence.

When Mormons try and pretend that the Lafferty's, or Brian David Mitchell (Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper) have no connection to the LDS Church, who are they trying to kid? Mitchell kidnapped Elizabeth Smart so she could be one of his "plural wives." Mitchell got his ideas for polygamy from one place and one place only - his Mormon heritage. Does this make the Mormon church responsible for his crime? Of course not! But you can't pretend that the Mormon church doesn't have ties to polygamy.

Third, I believe Mormons dislike this book because we are so focused on public relations. Mormons desperately want to be seen as "normal." We see ourselves as normal, and we wonder why others don't see us that way. When Mormons read Krakauer's book, they see someone on the outside seeing them differently than they see themselves. It's as if Mormons want to shout from the rooftops, "We're just like you! We're normal!" But the reality is Mormons have beliefs that ARE different. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't fair to fault Krakauer when he points them out and we don't like the way they come across.

Lastly, I believe Mormons are still in a "persecution" mentality. After enduring years of physical then cultural persecution, the Mormon church is finally gaining the respect it deserves. However, too many Mormons seem unable to accept criticism of their faith without automatically labeling it, "anti-Mormon." It's as if anyone who disagrees with us automatically earns the label. Yet most Mormons wouldn't consider themselves anti-Catholic, just because they don't always agree with certain tenets of Catholocism. We Mormons need to get out of our persecution complex and accept valid criticism and try and learn from it.

Krakauer has done a masterful job in tackling religious violence and and extremism. There are a handful of errors only an "outsider" of Mormonism would make. But these aside, the book is an especially insightful look at the fringes of Mormonism. Highly recommended.