Rating: 
Summary: Unbiased Truth
Review: First, I am a student attending BYU. Me and some colleages have read and studied this book, and even referenced some of the bibliography. It's factual. We know the difference between anti-mormon-sensationalism and factual, hardcore, historical fact. The latter, of course, is hard to swallow, especially for most Mormons regarding this book. The book has brought to light a lot of things most Mormons today do not wish to talk about.Secondly, the book is written VERY VERY WELL. This is a book everyone should read who is interested in knowing more about the factual history of the Mormon faith, how it links to the Lafferty murders and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, and how religion can promote finaticism and obsession in any faith. All of us here at BYU really enjoyed this book. We recommend it to anyone with an open mind. By the way, this has been a New York Bestseller for over 2 months now. I believe that says something!
Rating:
Summary: Well done
Review: I find it humorous that there is so much bashing of this book by Mormons stating that it is bashing them, when most likely they haven't even read it, wouldn't be "allowed" to. This is a well-researched, well-told story about a religion begat by criminals and liars. Any person with half a brain can differentiate the LDS mainstream (which is nuttier than a fruitcake to begin with) from the fundamentalists (even nuttier) who have become disenfranchised from the main "church", actually a cult, because of their constant change in position. How can a faith hold up their prophet, Joseph Smith, and not his teaching? The mainstream LDS have waffled on his basic premise so many times it is ridiculous and usually because of financial ramifications if they didn't!
This is a good book to begin the dialogue about what nuts live amongst us. Try to engage a Mormon in some of these topics and you will find that not only will they not talk to you about them, but they will feign ignorance and/or will rest on that age-old religious premise that it is for those who have received faith and without that you will not have the ears to hear or the eyes to see. BEWARE! What they really want is in your wallet. Thank you Mr. Kraukauer for this expose of the Utah clan. Now go read Stephen White's novel Higher Authority which exposes a little bit of their achilles as well.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent....really. Buy this book.
Review: This is a book about religious fundamentalism gone terribly wrong, resulting in two horrific murders. How society bred these murderers and turned a blind eye and ear to their violent threats is a fascinating, intriguing, well written, even suspenseful story. And yes, controversial. Religion tends to be a highly emotional subject, along with sex and politics. This book has all three!
Joseph Smith doesn't come out smelling like a rose, nor does Brigham Young. Does that offend some people? Yes. Does that make the research incorrect or invalidate the book? No. The bibliography looked pretty impressive to this reader.
Enjoy reading and learning.
Rating:
Summary: Don't pay attention to the negative reviews on this page!!!
Review: This is a fascinating and easy to read book--I could barely put it down after I started. However, there are people out there who want to criticize it simply because they feel it shows their religion in a negative light. I have respect for Mormons and the Mormon church, but I realize that the early days fo the church had many violent and negative moments. See these negative reviewers do not tell you that the LDS church has come out against the book--members have been told to not read the book, and they have been told to attack the book. So the negative reviews are not really honest. The LDS church has a heavy history in promoting revisionist views. Porter Rockwell is generally taught as a godly hero to children; the Meadows Mountain Massacre is completely removed from Mormon history--ask any Mormon about it and they will never have heard about the incident. Mormons only know a favorable view of their history. Nevertheless, at no point did I feel the book was attacking the current LDS church. The author always pointed out that the current church has nothing to do with the fundementalists. In fact, the author was actually quite kind to the current church. The reason that early church history is presented is to show its influence on current events. I felt it was quite balanced in presenting the past. Some reviewers state that the author refered to anti-LDS writers from the past, but he also refered to positive LDS writers and the words of the prophets themselves. Also, the author took fairly scholarly and respected texts that criticized the church--he did not take overly anti- and false sources like the Godmakers. The author at no time seemed to want to attack the church--those with a negative take are those who romanticize the early days and cannot accept that the early church has some dubious issues--does that mean the church is not true? No, and the writer never does that. So take off the rose-colored glasses and read the excellent work for what it is. As a professor, non-fiction reader and writer, and former member of the church, I found this book fascinating, well-written, and very well-researched. It was also extremely objective.
Rating:
Summary: First-rate
Review: A first-rate book, objectively written. The hysterical rants I've read against this book only further the point Krakauer is making about the nature of blind faith.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: As previous reviewers have pointed out, the low ratings on this page are from people offended with Krakauer's discussion of Mormon history and the case of the Lafferty brothers. Most of those offended are themselves Mormons. It is important to look at history--whether church, country or family history--with a critical eye. Krakauer isn't saying that the Mormon church is creating crazed killers, but he is saying that the Mormon church has dramatically changed it's religious tenets and views to accomodate better with American society and law. Mormonism is not unique in this respect, most Christian and other religions have changed somewhat to accomodate societal norms. This is why we have fundalmentalism; fundamentalists want to return to the way the religion originally used to be(or at least the way they perceive the way it was). Krakauer makes it clear that the Lafferty brothers were fringe and not the norm. But he does visit some interesting points (the court case against the Lafferty brothers originally raised these points) that religious belief and it's irrational thought is often close to other cases that psychiatrists have labeled mental disorders. I think that the further a religion strays from the norms of society, the more it gets labeled as crazy or cultish. It is interesting that religions do adapt to societal conditions to remain mainstream, especially since the "truths" they espouse are supposed be eternal and handed down from god. Krakauer discusses the Mormon church's history and uses a variety of sources, not just those critical of the Mormons. Mormonism is not unique in trying to cover up their not-so-benevolent history. Support for or being silent on slavery, facism, racism are part of the histories of most western (eastern religions are not free from repressive histories either) religons. And sexism, homophobia, racism and other repressive ideas still remain part of many current religious practice and doctorine.
Rating: 
Summary: UNDER THE BANNER OF HEARSAY
Review: How to proceed with this one? When a bad book is written it is difficult to be convincing to anyone about its badness. It boils down to an opinions spitting war. Hopefully that will not happen here. If you are interested in the lives and eccentricities of polygamists, their bizarre behavior and their propensity to violence in defending their beliefs then this book will offer some enlightenment. I read the book specifically to find out more about Dan Lafferty and the murder of his sister-in-law and niece. I wanted to read the interviews that Krakauer had had with Lafferty and to get a better understanding as to how such heinous crimes could be perpetrated against members of the Lafferty family--Dan's own extended family-- in the name of religion. The book was informative from that standpoint. But if you think that this book will give you the supposed inside story of the dark side of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) you are sadly mistaken. In the first place, none of the fundamentalists interviewed by Krakauer are members of the LDS Church. Since the late 1800's all individuals practicing polygamy and, more importantly, given to views and teachings that are inflammatory and contrary to those accepted by the LDS Church are summarily excommunicated. Moreover, Dan Lafferty--even in the Krakauer interviews--admits that he is not a member of the LDS Church and that his beliefs depart dramatically from anything the LDS Church teaches. In the second place, Krakauer's supposed research is riddled with references to the works of individuals like Fawn Brodie--an avowed nonobjective enemy of the LDS faith who wasted her life away writing unbelievable drivel about the Church's origins for decades. Mind you, she didn't stop with insubtantiable rubbish about Mormonism. She also wrote a landmark series of books about America's Founding Fathers that painted them as nothing more than a lecherous bunch of womanizers who just got lucky when it came to democracy. Brodie's reverse chauvinism is as transparent as water and the chip on her shoulder all too evident. If you are interested in historic facts regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read Leonard Arrington's excellent biography of Brigham Young, American Moses. It provides a fair narrative of many of the events included in Krakauer's book--information terribly twisted and misrepresented, I might add. If you want to read this book in order to look at radical religious fundamentalism, especially the tragic events centering on Dan Lafferty and his brother, Ron, then do so. But take Krakauer's supposed "facts" about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints as what they are--nothing more than mean-spirited, small-minded hearsay.
Rating:
Summary: Mormon loves Krakauer's book
Review: I read this book and absolutely loved it. It was complelling, thoughtful and well-researched. Oddly enough I was raised as a mainline Mormon. I was not offended by this book. I just loved it immenseley. I wish there were more Mormons who could read a work like this with maturity and wisdom. It poses many great questions that we all would do well to ask ourselves. I don't see Krakauer as attaking all religion. He's just providing a balance and even defending mainline Mormonism by saying that fundamentalism is not unique to Mormonism. Our college in Utah is trying to get Krakauer on campus. This is a great read. I recommend it to anyone. But read it with maturity. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and views. Even history.
Rating: 
Summary: Typical Mormon Bashing
Review: This is a very poorly written diatribe against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The "author" has poorly researched the religion. He intermingles past events with recent events and does a very poor job of distinguishing various cults from the actual Mormon Church. This book is clearly biased. The last bastion of bias acceptable in our PC world is the caucasian, Christian, heterosexual male. If the author had written such a book about any other group, he would be branded a racist, sexist, genocidal Nazi. Do not believe this book. Just read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants yourself.
Rating:
Summary: A response to the critics ...
Review: First of all, I found this book to be fscinating and would recommend it to anyone. As for those who gave it 1 or 2 stars, I found that virtually every one of the critics had one theme in common--they felt that Krakauer did an insufficient job of distinguishing between the Lafferty's and other Fundamentalist Saints and all of the "regular" LDS, such that readers could get the misleading impression the the Lafferty's and their ilk are representative of all 11 million LDS. Personally, I thought that Krakauer was perfectly clear on that point and it was always clear to me that the Fundamentalist group is a kind of fringe sect that does not represent the views of all the non-Fundamentalist Saints. However, even recognizing the distinction between the 2 groups, I had a different reason to be critical of the "regular" Saints, and that relates to Joseph Smith: It would seem that if he is the founder of the Church, its original President, Prophet, Seer, etc. etc., and obviously its most esteemed figure, then it would stand to reason that ALL Saints--and not merely the crackpot Fundamentalists--would have to treat both him and his beliefs with the utmost reverence and awe. However, Joseph Smith struck me as a sham, a fraud, a crackpot, a charlatan or whatever other synonym one may wish to call him. Indeed, it seems that his main attribute was his immense charisma and if we were an evil man (and I'm certainly not saying that he was), he could have just as easily the Hitler or the Osama Bin Laden of his day. He used his charisma for the same purpose that many charismatic people do, namely to cause large numbers of people to treat him as if he were practically a deity. I was particularly put off by the whole polygamy issue. While he may have chosen to cloak the whole thing in religious terms and to tell the world that he had received another "revelation" from God, it seems clear to me that a revelation from God had nothing to do with it. Rather, he was probably a horny young man who wanted to sleep with as many women (or, even better, young girls) as possible. Since he didn't want to have "affairs", he tells us that God "revealed" to him that he could sleep with all these women and girls and all he had to do was to marry them. Please!! This guy is the founder and "leader" of the LDS? As I see it, the reason I have a negative reaction to the "regular" Saints is not because I ever confused them with murderers or polygamists like the Lafferty's, but because I don't understand how they deal with the Joseph Smith issue. If they accept him and his teacings in all respects and treat him as a quasi-deity, then I would have no respect for them because I didn't have respect for Smith himself. On the other hand, if they don't accept him, then isn't that a flaw with the whole religion, i.e. when one doesn't accept the very person who founded your entire religion? The middle ground solution--i.e.--we accept some of his teachings, but not all, doesn't make much sense either. For example, it seems that the FLDS are absolutely correct in embracing polygamy to the extent that Smith embraced it himself. However the modern LDS tell us that they reject that part of Smith's teachings. And presumably, there are other parts that they reject as well. However it seems to me that if your religion is going to be based on, and founded by, a flesh and blood "God on Earth" like Smith, then his followers do not really have the right to simply "pick and choose" those portions of his teachings which they like and those which they don't. Either he was divinely inspired and was spoken to by God or he was not. One can't have it both ways. By contrast, I don't picture Christians as "selectively" adopting Christ's teachings.
| 
