| Title | : | Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0330419129 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780330419123 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 400 |
| Publication | : | First published July 1, 2003 |
| Awards | : | Colorado Book Award General Nonfiction (2004) |
A multilayered, bone-chilling narrative of messianic delusion, savage violence, polygamy, and unyielding faith. This is vintage Krakauer, an utterly compelling work of nonfiction that illuminates an otherwise confounding realm of human behavior.
Jon Krakauer’s literary reputation rests on insightful chronicles of lives conducted at the outer limits. In Under The Banner of Heaven:
Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith Reviews
-
This is a hard book for me to review given that I have quite a few Mormon friends and that although my own philosophy leans more towards existentialism than anything else, I feel it's differents strokes for different folks. I am led inescapably by this book to view Mormonism as a cult that has changed and adapted as was expedient given the various political currents ebbing and waning.
I've seen, here in the West Indies, how a cult can gain both the practice and the legitimacy of an established religion within a few generations. There are two routes to this. The first is the government is willing to recognise it and allow it tax-exempt status in which case it becomes part of the establishment The second is that it becomes an issue of political-correctness and people and the media must appear to pay the cult at least the lip-service of respect whether or not it deserves it. I'm talking about Rastafarianism of course. And I've read it here in this book as a cult developed into what would become the FLDS (still a cult) and the mainstream Mormons.
With Rastafarians, the first generation that had major public visibility, was reggae, Bob Marley. The second generation were the rastas with their locks that were making records, and many of my friends. The third generation are the grandchildren, my friends' children brought up in the 'religion'. The fourth are the very young, the great grandchildren.
In the first generation, the founder either seeks influence and power as with Mormonism, or is deified, Haile Selassie in Rastafarianism. In the second generation the founding truths and myths and the legends surrounding the founders or the deified one have coalesced into a body of oral and written literature that will form the holy books. This will become the work of sacred reference that will be consulted when laws are changed or introduced and which will be used when moral laws are decided.
As an aside in all cults and religions it seems to be that men will use the holy books to justify their treatment of women. There are no established religions that have been created by women, the development and administration of religion is a man's game.
In the third generation, the grandchildren are in the same situation as the children of people belonging to religions thousands of years old - they do not remember a time, nor do their parents when they and their families were not believers and theirs is a history and established pattern of worship and traditions to draw upon.
When the religion is still a cult, the goverment and courts will not allow the teachings of that cult to be a defence for crimes committed. There is much of this, including a truly unholy massacre in this book. But once the cult has the weight of an established religion, then the religion becomes a legitimate defence to crime, the crime has been committed Under the Banner of Heaven.
As with all Karakauer books, its very well-written in quite a journalistic style and is well worth a read even if you totally disagree with my interpretation of it.
read originally 2008, reviewed 2015
review rewritten 3 March 2020 -
I read this book for the book club at my local library. Afterwards, I felt indignant, confused, intrigued, and disgusted about all forms of faith. So, I sincerely hoped that a Saint or two would show up at the book club meeting, to nullify my extremely negative view of the church. Alas, no LDS believers showed, so I am left to my own conclusions about the book and faith in general. Here are some of my conclusions and questions after reading this sprawling, fascinating account of the history of polygamy and violence within the Church of Later Day Saints:
There is a certain appeal to having no choices. Sometimes religion is comforting because obedience to a provided list of rules removes personal responsibility. Strict adherence to a religion removes personal doubt. When you believe so fully in a church, you are no longer forced to question your own actions-- after all, if you carefully follow the directions of your spiritual leaders, you will gain your own paradise, regardless of what your personal conscious says about right or wrong.
This leads me into my next point. I will never be a Mormon, for many reasons. First, in the Mormon faith, if you realize the highest echelon of Mormonism, you will get your own planet to run after you die. If you're a man, that is. If you're a woman, you can join your man on his planet... if he invites you. No, no, no. Please. I deserve my own planet. Wives and children are property, at least in the fundamentalists sects of Mormonism. I am a person, an event, not chattel. Second, remind me to never join a religion that condones killing. (See "blood atonement," as typified in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.) Third, I don't want to be a believer in a faith that tells me I have to earn love-- least of all, God's. We are all holy, I think. We all have goodness and grace within us, no matter how many veils of earthly existence have descended. Finally, I will never follow a religion that doesn't encourage me to question everything. Information and education are my life-blood. I must be able to use my brain to get closer to God. Otherwise, why the heck would s/he give it to me?
So, now that we have the comments specific to the Mormon faith out of the way, let's move on to the questions about faith in general. I heartily recommend this book to anyone who is going through a personal crisis. It will boil your blood and make you think. (What more could you want?) Here are my questions:
1) Why does listening to the divine in each of us produce such different results? It can lead to peace and pacifism, or killing. Who is speaking? God, or ego?
2) Is all fundementalism mired in violence, or do certain faiths promote it?
3) Does God always speak in King James' English? (It seems so, according to the Book of Mormon.)
4) Would all religions seem this crazy if we were only 200 years out, and had intimate, dirty details of each guru's life?
5) Is there anything inherently wrong with polygamy? Do we have a gene for monogomy? (I don't care, as long as no one gets hurt. And marrying 13 year olds, sometimes when they're your own daughter, is inherently hurtful.)
6) Is faith the opposite of reason? Is education the cure for religion?
7)Is religion a distraction from the humdrum of our everyday lives? (Opposite of Buddhism.)
Ok, y'all, sorry about the long review. But seriously, read the book. It's excellently chilling, and will keep you up late at night writing your comments furiously on post-it notes. At least, that's what it did to me. -
this book is quite different from what i thought it would be. i was excepting ‘in cold blood’ true crime vibes, and that is present, but much of the book explores the history of a particular religion and how extreme religious belief can sometimes inspire violent actions.
while the in-depth history sections were not my favourite (ive never been a history person, no matter the topic), i love JKs writing. theres just something about it that makes me feel like he could take any subject and make it accessibly readable.
what i did find the most interesting were the numerous cases mentioned that exemplified such intriguing, albeit horrific, behaviour, particularly surrounding polygamy - the books main topic. from the lafferty murders to the abduction of elizabeth smart and even the events of 9/11, i appreciate the time JK takes to include these. i find the psychology behind these religiously motivated crimes to be so interesting, so that was my main motivation for reading this book.
overall, not my favourite JK book as there were some parts that bored me, but still excellent writing and storytelling that is quintessentially krakauer.
↠ 3.5 stars -
The Spirit of America
Harold Bloom has called Mormonism the American Religion. Not only was it created in America, Mormonism also articulates the American Dream in both its history and its doctrine: the ultimate deification of its members united in a theocratic independence of civil authority. Mormonism, although a relatively small sect, represents the mainstream of American evangelical, perhaps national, consciousness. What Under the Banner of Heaven demonstrates, if nothing else, is just how strange and syncretistic that consciousness is.
Mormon faith is something quite distinct from that of Pauline Christianity, for example. In the latter, faith refers to intellectual assent to certain unchanging doctrines. In Mormonism, faith means obedience to the authority of the church hierarchy, which may decide to change fundamental doctrines from time to time. In Christianity there is a tradition of opposing ecclesiastical authority with dogmatic tradition. Mormonism opposes doctrine through hierarchical authority.
Widespread doctrinal debate is not possible, therefore, within Mormonism. Mormon sectarian divisions are much like the personal loyalties of hyper-orthodox Jewish sects which are directed toward individual religious leaders, and only incidentally to the dogmatic stance of these leaders. Loyalty is not to the position but to the individual, literally the definition of a cult of personality.
As Bloom has noted, there is a decided gnostic strain in Mormonism. The world, notably but not solely other human beings outside the church are, when not actually evil, a threat to the Mormon faithful. This attitude is expressed in extreme form by the so-called Fundamentalist Mormon Church which doesn’t recognise the legitimacy of civil government at all and openly conducts a strategy of ‘draining the beast’ by exploiting local, state, and federal government to obtain welfare benefits for members.
But even ‘moderate’ Mormons appear to tolerate democratic institutions as a necessary and temporary evil. In this, Mormonism echoes the sentiments of the first Puritan, Baptist, and Methodist settlers who traditionally accepted democratic government only so long as it conformed with their doctrinal interpretations. ‘One nation under God’ is meant literally.
Mormonism bases its legitimacy on the idea of continuing divine revelation. Where Christianity declares revelation ‘closed’ with the death of the Apostles, Mormons accept not only the writings of Joseph Smith to be divinely inspired, but also the possibility of direct revelation to any (male) member of the church. Inspiration is a part of being Mormon.
Spiritual insight is a virtue/skill/capacity for all those who are bona fide members of the Mormon priesthood, which includes all Mormon men. This patriarchal egalitarianism appears almost Roman in its presumption that the boundaries of the state end where the household begins. The state has no right to intrude upon family matters, even if these involve questions of statutory rape, child abuse or paedophilia. The paterfamilias is sovereign in his sphere.
This recognition of continuing revelation (and its literal interpretation) at the level of the household has caused problems since the earliest days of Mormon development. Joseph Smith’s revelations about polygamy, for example, were countered by revelations to his sons (and his wife) that suggested Smith was being self-serving, not to say lascivious. In a highly authoritarian structure like the Mormon Church, there is only one path for those who revelations are either not recognised or condemned as heretical - separation.
Consequently Mormonism is even more fragmentary than Christianity. Not only are there a variety of formal sects, there are also an untold number of ‘independents’ who conduct their unique cults at effectively within their own households. One’s family gods in Shintoism naturally come to mind. Within the American legal system, such independents may claim religious affiliation and constitutional protection when convenient; and reject hierarchical supervision when not.
Factually, all religions have their extremist adherents. Although Mormonism arguably has structural and cultural characteristics (as well as a history) which are amenable to violent interpretation by its members, this is not what I think is most interesting about either the Church or Under the Banner of Heaven. Rather, it is Mormonism as an interpretation of being American that is more significant and more informative.
The ‘official’ interpretation of the American Dream involves several mythical principles. Devotion to democratic government operating independently of religious affiliation; an openness to opportunity for talent and effort regardless of social status; and political involvement based on principles of equality and an absence of coercion are some of the most basic of these principles.
But this dream has never been approached in reality; nor has it it even considered as desirable by whatever one chooses to define as the ‘establishment’ of American culture and politics. The mainstream of this culture is represented rather well by Mormonism. Not only does the Church accurately capture a perennial and persistent part of the American character, it also embodies the functional American ideal.
This ideal incorporates several apparent contradictions. Political authoritarianism is combined with a traditional rejection of the mechanism of civil government necessary to carry out that authoritarianism. The result is a government that is tolerated as long as it affects only those who have not achieved the status of authority. This class has included the native population as well as a succession of immigrant groups, most recently aspiring immigrants from Islamic countries and Central America.
Similarly American politics is highly factional without being ideological. Whatever political doctrines prevail at the moment may be replaced seamlessly by there opposite when required - especially at the call of a charismatic leader. The potential elector therefore chooses his tribe, and adopts an attitude of loyalty to that tribe regardless of its policies. This provides a great degree of moral as well as intellectual flexibility which Americans perceive as freedom.
American freedom, like Mormon faith, also has a peculiar meaning. It is the freedom to conform. If conformance is not forthcoming, the alternative is to leave. Freedom, as a practical matter, does not include the freedom to disagree, debate, or dispute while remaining a part of the polity. This is not a new development in Mormonism but it is a more modern expression of the original European settlers (Recall that the Baptists emigrated to the Rhode Island Plantations because they had been banned from the Massachusetts Bay Colony).
The ideal of truth in America has always been a matter of politics. This is a natural implication of the right of every American to their own divine revelation (or biblical interpretation if they prefer that term). To put it crudely but accurately: Being right is a personal right. Expertise, intellectual skill, superior knowledge have no priority over the intuition, the hunch, and the prejudiced opinion.
This congeries of peculiar ideals lead to another which is peculiar in a different way: idealised violence. Violence in America is not a consequence of frontier lawlessness or pioneering necessity; it is an essential part of the dream. The combination of faith as obedience, authoritarian rejection of authority, freedom as withheld commitment, self-serving claims of conscience, and truth as relative to doctrine create an implicit appeal to force as the ultimate virtue. This ideal goes some way in explaining not just the statistics of violent crime in America, but also its resistance to any reforms, like gun control, likely to improve them.
My suggestion, therefore, is that Under the Banner of Heaven is not as probative about the nature of the Mormon Church as it is about American culture, particularly political culture. In this light, the book is far more informative than as a typical salacious exposé of cultic error or abuse. As is also the title itself. -
4.0 to 4.5 stars. For non-fiction, this book had me absolutely riveted from the very beginning. This true crime narative has three main themes, all of which I think Krakauer accomplishes extremely well. First, this is a true crime story of the brutal double murder of Brenda Lafferty and her 15 month old baby girl at the hands Ron and Dan Lafferty (the older brothers of Brenda’s husband). Second, is a survey of the origin and early history of Mormonism and the basic doctrines of the Mormon faith. Third, the book details the deep divide and animosity between the Mormon church and the various fundamentalist Mormon sects, including the one to which the murderers belonged. These three story-lines are not broken down into sections but are interwoven throughout the book. However, for simplicity I will address each separately.
THE MURDERS
On July 24, 1984, Brenda and Eric Lafferty, wife and daughter of Allen Lafferty, were brutally murdered by Allen’s older brothers Ronald and Dan Lafferty. The book begins with an account of the murders and several of the newspaper articles that covered it and then layers in the story of Ron and Dan and the events leading up to the killing throughout the rest of the book. One quote from the book that still haunts me occurs in the first few pages when Dan describes the murder of his 15 months old niece:He [describes] how he found his fifteen-month-old niece, Erica, standing in her crib, smiling up at him. ‘I spoke to her for a minute,’ Lafferty recalls. ‘I told her, I’m not sure what this is all about, but apparently it’s God’s will that you leave this world; perhaps we can talk about it later.’ And then he ended her life with a ten-inch boning knife.
For me, as a father of two little girls, this is one of the most disturbing passages I have ever read.
THE HISTORY OF MORMONISM
The second component of the book is a fairly detailed overview of the founding and early history of the Mormon church. I am not joking when I say that before I began reading this book, almost everything I knew about the Mormon faith came from watching South Park.
I thought the early history of the church was fascinating, especially the descriptions of the tension and actual armed conflicts between LDS supporters and (1) Missouri residents and militia in 1838 (aka the Missouri Mormon War), (2) the Illinois Militia in 1844 (aka Illinois Mormon War) and (3) the U.S. Government in 1857-58 (aka the Utah War). For those not familiar with these conflicts or this period of American History, I think you will find it very interesting.
FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONISM
The most compelling aspect of the book for me was the description of various fundamentalist Mormon sects, including their basic beliefs and the amount of influence and control they maintain over their followers. Krakauer goes on to describe the deep animosity that the fundamentalists have for the mainstream Mormon church (and vice versa). While there are many points of contention between the two, the major theological difference is over polygamy which the fundamentalists believe is a sacred duty required by God. He states in the Prologue of the book:Mormon authorities treat the fundamentalists as they would a crazy uncle - they try to keep the "polygs" hidden in the attic, safely out of sight, but the fundamentalists always seem to be sneaking out in public at inopportune moment to create unsavory scenes, embarrassing the entire LDS clan.
Krakauer also describes how the fundamentalist Mormons view the U.S. Government as Satan and believe that stealing from the government (either in the form of educational grants for cities which they control or in the form of welfare for their numerous wives and children) is their sacred duty. He says, “Fundamentalists call defrauding the government ‘bleeding the beast’ and regard it as a virtuous act.”
For example, the largest fundamentalist sect is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the United Effort Plan (UEP). At the time the book was written, the UEP was run by Rulon T. Jeffs (aka Uncle Rulon) out of the town of Colorado City, AZ on the border between Arizona and Utah. Colorado City has a population of about 5000 all of which belong to the UEP and the town gets between $4Millon and $6Million a year in public education funding and other grants. The power base of the town stems from Uncle Rulon who had approximately 75 wives (many as young as 13-14) and over 65 children. BTW, no member of the town is able to watch TV, read a newspaper or have any interaction with the outside world.
FINAL THOUGHTS
I thought this was a compelling read. Krakauer does a great job of layering in a ton of interesting background while keeping the narrative of the events leading up the brutal murders moving forward. I was impressed with how well Krakauer avoided letting the narrative get bogged down although that could just be my fascination with the subject matter. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!.
-
This book makes a lot of big promises, but it suffers from several serious flaws:
1. Lack of focus.
2. Too long.
3. Preposterous claim.
4. Boring
This is a true crime novel--maybe--set against the history of the Mormon Church--but not really--trying to tie in a couple of murders committed by a couple of sickos--all too common--into an historical and political climate of post-terrorist, millennial religious revival--unsuccessfully.
For true crime, it's shockingly dull, and the crime is committed by the middle of the book, but you already know it's going to happen because it's committed in the prologue, too. The characters aren't interesting, their motivations are the ordinary motivations of religious sickos, and the detail is presented tediously.
The Mormon Church is presented as entirely to blame for the murderers' thoughts and the victims, and for Elizabeth Smart's abduction and captivity. It's crammed full of historical detail that might be interesting but it's presented in such a snide, disrespectful tone that it's just a rip on the Church. At one point the author grudgingly admits that Mormonism is no stranger or objectively odd than any other religion (once you get right down to it) but he nonetheless mocks it and its adherents. He continually harps on its sexism, as if every other religion in the Western World were a paragon of equality and political fairness. Odder still is the fact that his murderers and enablers aren't even Mormon. They invented a religion based on Mormonism, but it's taken to such an extreme that the Mormon Church has disassociated itself with them and is cited frequently by the author as denying that what these guys practice is the same religion.
I made it to page 175 where the murders happened, and then the book jumped to another overly detailed of the history of Joseph Smith and friends and I was only halfway through the book. I guess the rest of it is how the Mormons got to Utah and the court case, but considering everyone knew who committed the murder--they'd told maybe ten people they were going to do it and they confessed immediately and you knew this already from the book--there was no suspense about that. The psychological profile of a religious killer is known already. I can't imagine what you would need to keep writing about.
There are also too many footnotes, on diverse and vaguely interesting tidbits, some of them half a page long. It adds to the lack of focus. It's just a scrambled book about a tragedy.
Everything seems to be coming up polygamy of late, down to the HBO series, Big Love. So perhaps this was shocking and provocative and informative a few years ago, but the fundamentalist polygamist sects are very much in the public consciousness now and this book doesn't give any new information. What I found most interesting were the similarities to some of the characters in that television show to some of the fundamentalist profiles in the book. None of them were similar to the point of being "inspired by," I don't think, but things like the Romanian immigrant becoming a plural wife reminded me of Ana, and the daughters of prophets all over the place reminded me of Nikki, and the Mormon wives of Mormon men who adopt polygamy reminded me of Barb. Of course, this is in circumstance only. Bill Paxton's family makes me wish I had a sister wife sometimes. I'd certainly get a lot more done. -
You know, I probably shouldn't have read this directly after finishing In Cold Blood. I'm not saying the combination brought out the homicidal psychotic in me, but I did have to pay for stabbing the hell out of a turkey in the Albertson's meat section the other day.
Is there a stranger sect out there than the Mormons? I mean, golden plates ... lost tribes ... Nephites battling Lamanites ... Orrin Hatch.... Well, yes, I guess one look at Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch suggests that Scientology has a lot to answer for, as well. For that matter, I've never understood how a burning bush speaks to someone. Why a burning bush? Why not, say, a burning acacia tree?
But if mainstream Mormonism is a little on the far-out side, then fundamentalist Mormonism--sort of like regular Mormonism with more fanaticism, more racism, more welfare cheating, more taking of wives, and more child rape--is like the spastic uncle that mainstream Mormonism keeps in the wine cellar. "Thumping? What thumping? I didn't hear anything. Did you hear anything, honey? I didn't hear anything."
Krakauer does a fine job of interweaving Mormon history, profiles of fundamentalist breakaway Mormon sects, and the hideous, gruesome story of the two God-soaked fundamentalist brothers who slashed the throats of a young woman and her infant daughter. He attempts to be as fair-minded as possible about all these subjects while never neglecting to call a spade a spade. Personally, I would have used the word "nutjob" and "charlatan" a lot more often, and not just in connection with the fundamentalists, but Krakauer makes a point of not passing judgment on the validity of firmly held religious beliefs. I guess a book called Is the Entire State of Utah Out of Its Mind? wouldn't sell.
In sum, though, Under the Banner of Heaven is as gripping and hard to put down as Krakauer's other fine books, and offers a valuable insight into a strange, deeply American phenomenon. Recommended.
One small but not unimportant note: Krakauer includes a final "Author's Remarks" section at the end of the book. These remarks chiefly concern Krakauer's own attitudes toward religion and Mormonism, as well as his intent in writing the book. It's unfortunate that he added this postscript, not because it's unwarranted but because a) it's largely superfluous, and b) it rather ruins the picture-perfect way the rest of the book ends. Jon, you had it in the bag, man; all you had to do was dribble out the clock. Everything in that postscript should be said in interviews. -
4 stars
Under the Banner of Heaven is a book I was supposed to read many years ago and never did. Back when it came out, I was a part of a high school book club at my local library and this was the book selected for one of the meetings and I just…. never got around to it. Fifteen years later is better than never, right?
This book examines a couple of different things. One is the brutal murder of a woman named Brenda and her small child. The men who murdered her, insisted they received a commandment from God to do so. So this book covers the murder but also goes into the history and foundation of the Mormon religion in order to better understand what happened here.
I’m not a huge fan of organized religion in general, so a lot of what was talked about in this book that I think was supposed to be shocking wasn’t for me. I was disturbed of course, but I pretty much expected all the weirdness and horrible things. To clarify, I don’t think this book is representative of an entire religion, but there are factions of religion that are very much about control and abuse and it’s not just one religion.
I definitely expected this book to be more focused on the murder than an overview of Mormonism and its history, but I still enjoyed it very much and found much of what was covered fascinating. They’re releasing a tv series of this book on hulu this year and I will definitely be watching, I’m curious how they’re going to adapt a book like this. -
I really enjoyed Into Thin Air, but now I wonder if it is poorly done as this book was. As a Mormon I was amazed at Krakauer's complete naivete that he's trying to pass off as expertise and a well-researched book. I'd be scared of Mormonism too if I read this and didn't know better. The logic leaps he makes are simply massive. For a story about the Lafferty's, this is a nicely told yarn. For understanding its extrapolation into a story about Mormonism it is foolishness at its finest.
-
Thank God that’s over (no pun intended)!
This book may have been confused about what it was or maybe it’s just me thats confused, but by the end of this (or, to be more accurate, well before the middle) I felt saturated with history and facts(?) to the point that I could no longer distinguish what was referring to Mormonism and what was FLDS. The crime discussed on the cover doesn’t feel central to the book, and I didn’t get a true sense of where the author was placing blame...narcissistic personality disorder or FLDS doctrine. I feel a little drained after this. 2 stars -
Since Donald Trump took office, Iceland responded by protecting its secular culture. The Icelandic government declared that all religions are considered mental disorders and banned all religious practices.
The Icelandic Psychological Defense Act (IPDA) made it illegal for any American televangelist to set foot in the country. The Iceland Heritage Defense Act (IDHA) strictly prohibits Christians from entering several locations and tourist sites, like libraries, women health centers, Starbucks, hot water springs, and Richard Dawkins Monument to Reason.
In 2019, Iceland placed the Southern Baptist Convention on its list of terrorist organizations, for using fear of eternal torment to achieve political goals.
Visitors who aren’t vaccinated due to religious reasons are prohibited from entering the country. They can be sick elsewhere.
Iceland’s Parliament chose to warn its citizens of the inherent dangers of taking the ‘Good Book’ seriously, and warning labels must be put on all Bibles. Taking the Bible literally can lead to irrational decision making; reading the Book of Revelation is positively correlated with speaking in tongues and other psychotic events. This new statute also demands that every Bible sold must be wrapped in plastic to keep small children from picking up the book and reading verses like Psalm 137:9 “Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”.
Reading the Bible has also been shown to cause an outbreak of Donald Trump.
This story about Iceland is of course false. It was originally published on the Patheos website in its satirical section called ‘Laughing in Disbelief’ (
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughin...), however it became a hoax on social media, with users believing it and commenting on the story as though it was real.
But why am I telling you this story?
Well, for starters, for the shock effect. I anticipate that some readers will be shocked more by reading this false story than by reading the story of the cruel murders by the Lafferty brothers which is the theme of Jon Krakauer’s book. It was just another murder inspired by fundamentalist belief - nothing new here. If that’s the case - if you felt shock while reading that false story - then it should make you stop and think…
Secondly, to compensate for the total lack of humor in the book. Seriously, reading Krakauer’s book isn’t fun at all. When I picked up this book, I expected that I at least would chuckle somewhat while reading about prophets and their divine revelations. I couldn’t. Mostly I felt annoyed by what I read.
Further, I believe that potential readers deserve to be warned about the danger of reading this book. At some point, I couldn't help thinking 'Oh my goodness, suppose this sort of crap is true for all religions, and by extension for the beliefs that define most people's lives’.
I don't think any other book could succeed in making me feel more skeptical about religion in general than this book did. The documented history of Mormonism was quite eye-opening, and I couldn’t help imagining similar origins of other religions.
Of course, religious fundamentalism was fundamental to (pun intended) the violence and repression recounted in this book, but where exactly do you put a moral limit on religiosity?
Honestly, the realization of living in a world rife with religious superstition, combined with my aversion of the current delusional ‘leader of the free world’ made me want to throw up.
Most importantly though, at some point in the court case against Ron Lafferty, the court first needed to determine if he was mentally competent to stand trial. Was Ron in his right mind? Was he crazy or sane?
“Saying that anyone who talks to God is crazy has enormous implications for the whole world of religion. It imposes a secular view of sanity and means that all religions are insane.
This issue was especially germane for Latter-day Saints, given the unusual importance Mormons have always placed on communicating directly with the Almighty. Their entire faith is based on talking to God.
This case potentially had great ramifications for the manner in which American courts would deal thereafter with violent crimes inspired by religious belief.
If Ron Lafferty were deemed mentally ill because he obeyed the voice of his God, isn’t everyone who believes in God and seeks guidance through prayer mentally ill as well? In a democratic republic that aspires to protect religious freedom, who should have the right to declare that one person’s irrational beliefs are legitimate and commendable, while another person’s are crazy? How can a society actively promote religious faith on one hand and condemn a man for zealously adhering to his faith on the other?”
That was really interesting because his defense lawyer said, "Look, how could someone with these extreme beliefs — talking to God, God tells him to kill his sister-in-law and her baby — that's clearly insane." And the prosecution said, "No, no. People have extreme religious beliefs all the time." I mean, most of us believe something that to outsiders would be preposterous — parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, going to heaven.
The prosecution prevailed. Ron Lafferty was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. However after spending 34 years on Utah's Death Row, Ron died a natural death last year. -
Intriguing and Incisively Iconoclastic
Ron & Dan Lafferty, convicted of vicious 1984 murders of their brother's wife & infant daughter (shown below)
A razor-edged examination of fanaticism in religion, focused primarily on the Mormon Church and its fundamentalist offshoot sects that continue to adhere to the norms the federal government forced the Church to abandon over a century ago: polygamy and the marriage of pubescent females.
Jon Krakauer concentrates on the true story of the 1984 murders of a woman and her infant daughter, immersing the reader in a timeline that shows the violence of some of today's Mormon-offshoot fundamentalists can be traced back, at least in part, to the Church's origins after its leaders were banished by Eastern U.S.' post-Victorian society for polygamy and early marriages. Krakauer's poetic fire seems aimed at:1) the flimsy nature of the societal line between a man--this seems primarily limited to men--being deemed a lunatic and seen as a religious prophet, when he says, "God told me [to do this] [I must sow my seed] [we must travel West] [I must impregnate your lovely daughter]"; and,
2) how shortly after Joseph Smith's death, the Church leaders' ubiquitous practice of prefacing nearly every decision or action with "God spoke to me," may have precipitated today's fundamentalists' justifying criminal conduct by saying God told him to ignore the laws so that he could marry and rape your daughter, and further, may have ultimately contributed to a fringe fanatic, whose black heart overflowed with resentment and revenge, perpetrating homicidal retribution by reading his demoniac thoughts as God's statement of a divine will.
A bit overlong, yet overall worthy of a read if you are fascinated by religious sects.
-
Gosh, I still feel a bit stunned. This book gives you a lot to think about, and it does it with a thwack.
Basically this is story of the Lafferty brothers, born into a deeply fundamentalist Mormon family with a sometimes brutal but sometimes loving father, whom they adored. As they grew older they really went off the rails, and they did so by becoming even more fundamentalist than their father, immersing themselves in old Mormon writings, and living their lives by these tenets, in a way that was both obsessional and extremely eccentric. Finally, one of them committed two murders, believing this to be God’s will….. a direct revelation in response to the prayers of his oldest brother.
I see it in terms of a follie en famille
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C...
At their trial they had several psychiatrists and psychologists on either side of the court room, some arguing for the defence of psychiatric illness, others arguing that they were in fact sane, and it was the writings and beliefs of the Mormon Church that had led them to this impasse. The author steps back in his assessment of the situation, and readers are left to make up their own minds.
Points raised include:
It was fascinating to read about the story of the origins of the Mormon Church, and the way that it has changed direction on several occasions via ‘revelations’ to the leaders of the church. I was also astonished to learn more about polygamy in the history of the church. It was not what I expected, and sounded extremely suspect to me in all respects. Most of all I was left with a strong distaste for fundamentalism in all its manifestations. I disliked it before. I dislike it even more now. Also the extraordinary story of Mormon beginnings – which are part of our recent history (it only came into being 183 years ago) - cannot help but light up the degree to which older religions have similarly extraordinary stories. The difference is the latter are part of our culture, and to a great extent part of our psyche.
A very interesting book indeed.
-------------------------------------------------------
An excellent 2 part programme on Mormons (kindly recommended by Catherine). Available until 2016.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1460817958/
http://video.pbs.org/video/1460862784/ -
My father's family is obsessed with Mormons, I think it's fair to say. Well..not Mormons. Most of the Mormons I've known have been perfectly regular people. If you're Mormon, please forgive me if that sounds callous. We are, however, obsessed with Mormonism, and have been since my aunt and uncle took a trip to Salt Lake City many years ago and came back with something we call "The Mormon Movie".
"The Mormon Movie" is like the axis point of a fascination that's gone on for years and is easy to explain: we're Lutherans. As Lutheran, in fact, as they come. My grandfather co-founded the church my parents grew up in, and my dad and uncle were both pastors as younger men. My mom's family went to that Lutheran church, too, her mother was the choir director. The story goes on. So for us, the stories of rites and rituals, of Jesus visiting the Americas, of holy underwear, of plural marriage, almost seemed too fantastical to be true.
Despite the inaccuracies of some of our perceptions of the LDS, this curiousity definitely added to my interest and enjoyment of this book, which is not so much a criticism of the Mormon Church as a look into how its history led to some very gruesome murders. LDS, of course, was not too thrilled with it, but I thought the book does a pretty evenhanded job of presenting facts more than opinions. I read it for my father's book club, and we had a debate about how fair he was being. But we also argued about how valuable participation in a religious institution is in the first place, or how corrupting it can be (I should add that the murderers in this book were part of a few different sects of Mormonism that were NOT part of the LDS). At any rate, it made us think and debate a lot, and it made us angry. That alone, I think, is a good reason to pick this one up. -
The tragic story of extreme and untreated mental illness; a polygamous cult called the "School of Prophets" which was a fundamentalist group of the Mormon Church and the failure of society to stop the killing of two innocent people in 1984. It is also the history of the Mormon Church and its place in American religion and culture. The killers (one who just recently died in 2019) were a pair of brothers who decided that their sister-in-law and her 15 month old baby girl were responsible for the breakup of the oldest brother's marriage. They decided to murder them as well as two other people. When they were arrested months later, they showed zero remorse for what they had done. It is a bone chilling murder case and covers the religious fanaticism and violent upbringing of the two brothers. Four stars.
-
This book is great for it's depiction and unbiased view of Mormonism.
-
The Hulu production of this story was accurate and, sadly, it's happened again....
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/8...
==========
The serial killers bring a sensationalist flavor to this story, but the book is really about what living in a polygamist cult is like, about sex-obsessed men, sick men, besotted men, and the women they brutalize. When a father is "marrying" and raping his own daughters it's genuine sociopathy.
This is what early Mormonism was like under both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and that's the author's point.
I have no natural interest in cults, but Mormonism was put before me several times over a number of years. I did my homework. For example, we met a couple in our SoCal days where the woman had set out to convert the man to the LDS religion, but his research of its true history, published by ex-Mormons, convinced her to leave. What the rank and file, and certainly what non-Mormons hear, is a whitewash.
The Mormons followed an Old Testament model. Joseph Smith decided that if Solomon could have multiple wives, he could. By all accounts he was a tall, handsome, strapping, charismatic man. He could have his pick.
A special revelation to Smith did the trick. It's codified in Doctrines and Covenants 132. Note that, as was the case with the Golden Tablets, it's rendered in "King James English" and that into section 54 it contains a direct rebuke to Smith's wife, Emma, who was understandably skeptical of such a "revelation."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/s...
=====
The Heartland agenda....
https://religiondispatches.org/mormon... -
I don't know if I can write an unbiased review of Under the Banner of Heaven. I'll say this: Krakauer's well-researched, exceedingly well-written 2003 book, which is 1/3rd a true crime examination of the brutal 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty and her young daughter Erika by two Fundamentalist (i.e. polygamous) Mormons Dan and Ron Lafferty (her brothers-in-law) and 2/3rds an exhaustive examination of the Mormon religion (particularly its violent foment), is a fascinating read.
What I have some trouble with is: I can't get over the idea that Krakauer had a gigantic axe to grind with religion/faith in general, and Mormonism in particular. He's such a talented writer that you don't (or at least I didn't, anyway) realize the spin he's thrown on his account until you've been convinced that all religions are ridiculous, and none more so than the hucksterism opportunely ideated by the likes of Messrs. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, et al. While I agree with much Krakauer had to say, his message in hindsight feels almost like reverse-proselytizing, which is almost as discomfiting as entertaining the efforts of those men in white shirts, clip-on ties, and black pants trying to meet their two-conversions-per-annum quota here in the middle of the (Baptist) Bible Belt. Still, Krakauer's points are persuasive enough to give anyone pause about the Fundamentalist Mormon faith (if not its still-strong ties to mainstream Mormonism), which is why I give a book four stars that made me so uncomfortable while reading it. -
If you, like me, went to Catholic school as a child, you may remember the story of how God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Issac. But just as soon as Abraham got little Issac up to the top of the mountain and was standing over him with a dagger, God said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "LMFAO... you were really going to do it, weren't you?"
While I admittedly can't remember exactly how my teachers framed this story, I don't think they wanted us to take it as a warning about walking off to a remote location with your father when he alludes cryptically to a "sacrifice" but strangely neglects to slaughter a goat. Nor should you run like hell, I'm pretty sure my teachers would have said, when you ask "father, why haven't we slaughtered a goat?" and your father just disconsolately stares off into the gathering fog without responding. I'm certain, rather, that the moral as my teachers saw it had to do with the supposed virtues of obedience and unquestioning faith.
This is a strange book for a couple of reasons. One is that the thesis, if there is one, is mostly implicit and never quite stated; I can't really tell if this is because Krakauer is not entirely clear about the point he's trying to make, or because he is squeamish about making it baldly. If you go by the precis, this is a true crime story- the unpleasant tale of the Lafferty brothers, Ron and Dan, two Mormon fundamentalists who come to believe that God has commanded them to kill the woman Ron blames for persuading his wife to divorce him (because he was descending into fundamentalism and sort of losing his mind...or was it the other way around?), as well as her infant child.
The question of insanity takes up a long stretch of the Laffertys' trial. Yes, it sounds a bit loony when you claim that God commanded you to kill, but what if you believe that God told you to play a certain lottery number? What about an athlete or politician, interviewed after a victory, who attributes that victory to God's will? Well, a psychologist testifying for the prosecution suggests (maybe having a little joke at the expense of his own profession) that its the recognizably communal nature of the Laffertys' beliefs- i.e., the fact that while their interpretation of Mormon fundamentalism is certainly idiosyncratic, the essential aspects (that God communicates directly with human beings, for example, with no intermediary required) are in line with those taught by the LDS church- that demonstrates their sanity, whereas insanity would be characterized by a complete break with communal reality.
But it's on this point- on the possible culpability of the LDS church for the Laffertys' murders- that Krakauer isn't quite clear, although the context in which he places them (more on this in a second) makes the implicit suggestion. There is an alternative interpretation, though. It seems that it would be much easier to murder someone you hate if you could convince yourself that God were ordering you to do it. Perhaps neither Ron nor Dan could acknowledge to themselves what they wanted to do, and their upbringing offered them the excuse of deifying (and therefore justifying, to themselves) their impulses. Dan seems to have received the communication from God first, obviating Ron's sense of responsibility for what he wanted to do all along. Later, in prison, when Ron hears the voice of God now commanding him to kill his brother, that also makes psychological sense. Dan, after all, seems to have enabled Ron's capacity for violence and landed Ron in jail for life, and on some level Ron understands this; but better to let God take the responsibly for a desire as repellent as murder.
It seems to me, in any case, that if you are going to blame Mormonism for offering the Laffertys a way of deifying their murderous impulses, you also have to live with the same potential in every red-blooded American who watches football on Sundays and believes a touchdown can be divinely ordained, or that the country itself is uniquely blessed.
It isn't shocking to me that Dan, years later, doesn't express remorse or doubt about his actions. It makes sense that the more adversity you face, and the worse your situation in life (life in prison or the possibility of execution at some future date, in Dan's case), the more incentive you have to believe in the fiction you've created for yourself, in which you'd only served as a divine instrument. Otherwise you'd have to acknowledge that...well...What about Osama's underlings, the holy warriors who sacrificed their lives for Allah by flying jumbo jets into the World Trade Center? Surely their faith and conviction were every bit as powerful as Dan's. Does he think the sincerity of their belief justified the act? And if not, how can Dan know that what he did isn't every bit as misguided as what bin Laden's followers did on September 11, despite the obvious sincerity of his own faith?
As he pauses to consider this possibility, there comes a moment when a shadow of doubt...and then it's gone. "I have to admit, the terrorists were following their prophet", Dan says. "They were willing to do essentially what I did. I see the parallel. But the difference between those guys and me is, they were following a false prophet, and I'm not."
----------------
The aforementioned context in which Krakauer places the murders, by the way, is the violent history of Mormonism and settlement of Utah. Krakauer tells this history in chapters that alternate with the Lafferty case, and I can understand a Mormon reading this and feeling a little annoyed at the implication that Krakauer never quite states. Is bringing children up 'in' Mormonism any more antithetical to critical thought than bringing them up 'in' any other religion? Krakauer never really convinced me. Yes, Joseph Smith was a charlatan and it sounds like maybe a pedophile, but I assume most Mormons experience Mormonism as a cultural identity, and don't spend a lot of time picking apart the falsities of its origins. Having just read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, I'm reminded of his suggestion that most mass movements are about cohesion, unity, tribalism. The validity or lack thereof of the movement's beliefs, Hoffer says, are often secondary to the sense of community and purpose. In this sense, it's hard for me to see how Mormonism is different from many other religions and/or mass movements. Furthermore, it's not a surprise to read that a religion that migrated to the American west in the 19th century was forged in violence- schisms, crises of succession, distasteful fundamentalist branches, divine visitations, orgies of bloodletting...frankly, it all sounds par for the course.
Perhaps more than any other state within the contiguous 48, Utah has a claim to being a country within a country. I stayed in Salt Lake City for a few days this summer, and at one point while walking downtown I suddenly looked up at a statue of Brigham Young surrounded by pioneers and felt that I should've had a visa or at least my passport on me; these were another people's idols, I was a foreigner (I was even drinking coffee), and I felt I should've been ready to explain my presence in their land. But then again almost half the population of Salt Lake City, Krakauer tells us, is Gentile (in the Mormon sense of the word), and it is apparently thought of by most serious Mormons the way most Louisianans think of New Orleans- morally compromised. Nearby Utah County, on the other hand, which includes Provo and Brigham Young University (BYU), Gary Gilmore country, is "the most Republican county in the most Republican state in the union." The Republican ethos of state's rights resonates strongly with Utah's origins- opposition to the federal government, almost a de facto kingdom until Washington clamped down- and continue to play a strong role in its modern-day politics, considering that Lyndon Johnson, in 1964, was the last Democratic candidate to win Utah's electoral votes. Near the end of the book, Krakauer quotes a sociologist who claims that by the year 2080, given the Mormons' tendency to proselytize, we can estimate that there will be 265 million of them on the planet. The implication being...well, what exactly? Krakauer then quotes Harold Bloom, who believes that within sixty or so years, governing the United States will become "impossible without Mormon cooperation", and that perhaps polygamy, supposedly abolished in the modern LDS church, will become the law of the land. At this point I worried that Krakauer was about to veer into the territory of my conservative Christian cousins, who spent the Obama administration genuinely worried about the imposition of Sharia law; but to his credit, he allows that "if Bloom's forecast is alarming, it also seems far-fetched."
How far away are we really though, you may find yourself wondering while lying awake at night, from that dystopian future? Bloom's prediction could have come true in 2012, when Mitt Romney ran for president, but I would say we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, assuming human civilization lasts that long. A slightly more pressing matter might be governing the US without Russian cooperation. A Mormon candidate ran for president in 2016 as well, with slightly less attention paid to him; this was Evan McMullin, a graduate of BYU and former CIA officer. McMullin ran as an Independent, and was said in the months leading up to the election to be mounting a serious challenge to Donald Trump in solid red Utah. Mormons, or so I read, apparently did not appreciate Trump's brand of uncouth New York straight-talk, and it was suggested that McMullin could win the state's 6 electoral votes (conceivably crucial) or siphon enough support from Trump to hand the state to Hillary Clinton, or even to Gary Johnson. But of course Trump prevailed, both overall and in Utah, and Bloom's chilling prophecy remains unfulfilled...for now. Considering the rise of emboldened alt-right groups across the country since Nov. 8, however, and the general assault on the rule of law, it's hard for me to work up much hysteria at the thought of emboldened Mormons, who, as far as I can tell, would do nothing more than aggressively pick up our cigarette butts from the ground behind us and argue even more persuasively while proselytizing at our doors. -
Good grief. At the time of this posting there are almost 70,000 ratings and baskets of reviews. So why another one? Good question.
Predictably, if you are a Mormon you won’t like this book, although it does seem to be well-researched and relatively even-handed. What appears to us skeptics as just silly nonsense is, for some people, inspired holy writ. Go figure. The Mormons themselves can't figure out what's revelation or not and who is or is not a prophet as Joseph Smith discovered to his dismay. His original revelation suggested that any Mormon could receive a revelation but quickly got another message from God that revelations would only go through Joseph Smith or his appointee. Very convenient way of maintaining control. God said so, so do it. What a great line.
It's interesting, but reading about some of the misdeeds of the early Mormon settlers and comments about this book on other sites, I was reminded of similar remarks made on Civil War book reviews by adherents of the "Lost Cause" myth. The same kind of myopic view .
I had no idea that those "other" Mormons, the FLDS, the polygamists, thrive(d) in assorted little places like Colorado City/Hildale, AZ/Utah twin cities that straddle the border. ** The whole town is controlled despotically by the local leader/prophet (it sure is tempting to declare myself a prophet and start pronouncing, what a kick.) The police, the school board, the mayor, everyone in authority is FLDS. The United Effort Plan owns almost all the town property. Many men there have many wives and it has become (or should anyway,) a scandal in the way they manipulate the system. Since the wives are legally single mothers and are unemployed they draw millions in benefits which becomes a major source of income for the hubby in charge. Ironically, if the marriages were declared legal, they would lose millions. The FLDS folks are positive they represent the true adherence to the "principle", celestial marriage without which one cannot go to heaven; the mainstream is equally positive their prophet got a message from God indicating that being admitted tot he union was more important than celestial marriage. So, there you are. I say put it to trial by ordeal. Dump both prophets in a vat of boiling oil. Of course, in the end, it's all about money and power.
The issue of what constitutes valid revelation from God (somebody explain to me why God finds it necessary to speak in 15th century English.) Since all male Mormons become priests (blacks excepted until God changed his mind about their essential evilness in the early sixties) many of them feel God is speaking unto them. Most of us would consider them delusional and in the case of Dan and Ron Lafferty who insisted God had told them to strike down the infidels who happened to be their wives. Raised in an atmosphere of religious fanaticism and paranoia, not to mention hatred of the federal government (I’ve never understood why federal and not state and township,) they saw themselves as the true righteous and holy. Ron’s descent began when his wife refused to go along with his desire to take a polygamous wife. In 1984 he received a “removal revelation” from God which he recorded on a yellow legal tablet. He and Dan then murdered Brenda and Erica. Last I checked, Ron was awaiting execution in Utah. He is now 61 and his brother is serving two life sentences.
The Lafferty’s had been fans of Robert Crossfield, otherwise known as Onias, who claimed to have received several revelations of God making hm the one and true prophet. They helped to distribute the Onias revelations, which, conveniently, also said the Lafferty’s had been the chosen ones even before they were born.
Krakauer interweaves the history of the Mormon church i n this bloodthirsty account of the Lafferty brothers. He finds the seeds of their crimes in the church.
Tidbits: Brigham Young wanted the state to be called the Beehive state rather than Utah (after the Ute Indians) because of its emphasis on the collective doing what's best for the group rather than emphasizing the individual. Today, given the association of collective with communism, the beehive on the state flag is considered to represent "industry."
If you are interested in the whole revelation business, I recommend the LDS website’s transcript of the revelation regarding blacks and the priesthood. It’s available here:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/legrand_ric... Hard to believe there are people who take this stuff seriously.
For a recent example, I quote this from the June 3 Washington Post: "
The leaders have come under intense scrutiny. Barely 36 hours after the caustic New Year’s Day vote, Boehner faced a coup attempt from a clutch of renegade conservatives. The cabal quickly fell apart when several Republicans, after a night of prayer, said God told them to spare the speaker…..
Southerland woke up convinced that Boehner should be spared. Others, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they, too, prayed before siding with Boehner.“ He’s not a God of chaos, he’s a God of order,” Southerland said."
Amazing that God might give a shit about the Speaker of the House.
Oh, and by the way, I have just received a startling revelation. Everyone reading this must get together and purchase for me an around-the-world cruise on the QM2, a suite of course. Chop, chop, if you want to avoid everlasting damnation. Now explain to me how that might be different from a revelation to kill my wife or to add wives. Or start a new religion.
**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildale,... -
This 2003 book by Jon Krakauer provides a well crafted interweaving of two histories: the origin and evolution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and a modern double murder committed in the name of God by brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty, who subscribed to a fundamentalist version of Mormonism. These histories are interrelated because the murder was motivated by endeavors of the Lafferty brothers to follow their understanding of the original manifestation of LDS teachings that enabled all believers to receive and interpret messages from God. They believed they were obeying the will of God by committing the murders.
I particularly found interesting the portion near the end of the book that excerpted portions of the trial transcript regarding the sanity of the defendant Ron Lafferty. The defense made the case that the crime was motivated by delusional belief, and since the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) states “false beliefs” by definition are delusions it logically follows that the defendant is innocent due to insanity.
The prosecution countered the defense insanity argument with testimony stating that the beliefs of the Lafferty brothers were religious faith beliefs no more insane than many other well known orthodox religious beliefs such as consubstantiation, virgin birth, and resurrection of the dead. The jury apparently agreed with the prosecution because they voted to convict.
The viciousness of the crime as described in this book took my breath away. Much of the Mormon history and the behavior of the fundamentalists' attempts to follow that early history were also shocking. The LDS is especially handicapped with a tradition that encourages all believers to think they can be prophets capable of receiving commands from God. All religions have some history and beliefs that don't holdup well under the scrutiny of twenty-first century sensibilities. Mormons are particularly burdened because its embarrassing history is less than two hundred years old and occurred during the age of the printing press. Thus it's well documented. -
An impressive undertaking by Jon Krakauer. A book of history, the tale of a modern religion, an extreme sect and a cold hearted murder.
Those ingredients would attract a vast array of audience: and indeed it did and still do. A nonfiction that narrates a history of the latter day church - the Mormons- their tale, their beginning with Joseph Smith and the story of the Golden plates. Polygamy, and how that tenant in the historical church caused a schism and gave birth to the fundamental LDS, that believes in polygamy, while the main stream LDS, shunned away from polygamy for various political and religious reasons.
The Lafferty brothers... fundamental LDS with a mission.. under a banner of heaven they are fighting for polygamy. Their illegal way of life and how it caused sadness and grief to a community.. and the lost lives of women who wanted to escape this society. This book also praises the women who left the polygamous life which some family trees looked like nuclear power plant blueprints than a normal family tree.
A very informative and I believe controversial book for any one who is a Mormon. Eye opening, interesting and shocking. -
In this dated bestseller on Mormon fundamentalism, Jon Krakauer applies a somewhat incohesive journalistic approach to an otherwise fascinating topic. Unfortunately his efforts ended just before the well known Warren Jeffs case of 2006. A search for more recent books on the sect turns up few promising options beyond a number of victim's accounts. An exception may be "Prophet's Prey" written by one of the investigators, which appears to be popular but has garnered little critical notice.
Krakauer had previously written two acclaimed books; one about the McCandless Alaska story "Into the Wild", and another on his own role in the ill fated 1996 Everest disaster "Into Thin Air" (both were made into movies). He first became known in his career as a writer for Outside magazine and other popular periodicals. It could be that he has a greater affinity for outdoor adventure writing due to his personal experience as a mountaineer. I haven't read either of these books, but plan to in the future.
"Banner of Heaven" is problematic in several ways however. It begins reasonably enough with the history of the Mormon mainstream Latter Day Saints (LDS) and their relationship with the Fundamentalist Saints (FLDS). The LDS renounced polygamy in 1890 under legal and military pressure. The FLDS rightly saw polygamy as a tenet of the original faith, as per the sacred texts of their founding prophet Joseph Smith. This part of the story is delivered in a clear and concise manner.
The difficulties begin as the book proceeds. Ostensibly the book is about the 1984 double murders committed by two brothers who had been excommunicated from the church. The reader is lead on a circuitous trail of persons and incidents at the Arizona FLDS headquarters, and within the fundamentalist community at large. Some of these accounts are little more than digests of contemporary newspaper articles, while others are interviews that were conducted by the author himself.
The storyline moves back and forth between the early history of the church and recent FLDS incidents. Alternating time periods in each chapter interrupt the narrative flow. A shifting cast of characters complicates the sequence of events. Only at the very end a message on Mormon fundamentalism is delivered by an apostate from the faith. His insight is that the power of religion is based on not having to make critical decisions or being responsible for your own actions.
LDS criticism of this book attacks the premise that religion is irrational. In the murder trial an insanity defense is rebutted by the argument that the brothers beliefs are no more irrational than other mainstream religious views. The role of religion in society may be debated on reason or belief, but little light is shed here on the question. Although abuse of religious freedom is amply shown, the dilemma of where 1st Amendment rights should end and the rule of law begins is largely left unexamined.
In one passage a FLDS wife protests that the group is being judged by 19th century moral standards. Bigamy was then thought to have been more heinous than slavery, whereas now all sorts of liberalized sexual relations are tolerated. More pertinently the FLDS are being held to 20th century standards, when adolescent marriage came to be considered immoral and illegal. Child sexual abuse protections continue to be contended by religious zealots who are far beyond the pale of polygamy. -
This book was intense. I’m a sucker for religious studies anyway, especially those different from my own, and this book has been on my radar for awhile now because Mormonism (in general) and fundamentalists (of all kinds) have always interested me, so when I found out this book was about Mormon fundamentalists, there was never any doubt that I’d read it eventually. But what I was expecting from this book and what I got were two totally different beasts. My expectation was to walk away thinking, “hm, yes, Mormon fundamentalists are interesting, hm.” But instead, I feel like this book magically sprouted a pair of legs, donned a pair of wicked shitkickers and promptly nailed me in the gut. Thank you Jon Krakauer, your organizational management and storytelling abilities have just earned you another fan.
In the prologue of the book, Krakauer makes some important statements about fundamentalists, hoping to impress upon his readers that the bizarre story he is about to share is not characteristic of the entire Mormon faith but that it goes to show that religious fundamentalism can be a very bad thing that can sprout from any religion or school of thought, and I appreciated that he stated that straight off the bat.
For most Americans, the thought of polygamy is truly scandalous. We can laugh about Victorians who thought it was shameful for a woman to bare her ankle to a man and crack jokes about the hullabaloo that resulted from the Brady Bunch parents, Mike and Carol, being filmed lying in a bed together wearing pajamas and discussing the antics of their kids at the end of the day. But the thought of one man with more than one woman is outrageously wicked in the eyes of most. The same could likely be said of those who practice open relationships or engage in a swinger lifestyle or polyamorism. Our youth can usually get away with screwing around without too much concern but eventually, the social expectation is that each of us will eventually settle down with one partner at a time and quietly live out the rest of our lives.
And then you have many Mormon fundamentalists who strongly believe that God wants them to have plural wives. For those of us who disagree with their claim to live this sort of lifestyle, Krakauer has showcased a number of deeply disturbing stories that confirm for the rest of us (Mormons and non-Mormons alike) why it is illegal and why that should not change.
The main story surrounds the ritualistic murder of Brenda and Erica Lafferty, a young Mormon wife and her 15-month-old daughter. Krakauer highlights some details of the murder early-on, but it isn’t until the middle section of the book that the full retelling of the murder takes place. So those hoping for a gutsy true crime story may find themselves disappointed and there was a reason this book is shelved in the “religion” section of the bookstore. Krakauer also highlights a number of other infamous polygamous families, towns and talks about the ramifications of sects closing out the influence of the outside world. He also talks about taxes and welfare and what this means for polygamists and Mormon fundamentalists. Most importantly, he talks about historical events that occurred centuries ago as well as more modern events that have happened in the decades that preceded the crime that may have established a basis for why the Lafferty brothers killed their sister-in-law and baby niece.
In the authors remarks at the end of the book, Krakauer admits that when he struck out to write this book, his intent had been to write about the syncretism between the roots of Mormonism and the current practices and beliefs of the Latter Day Saints. But then the book morphed itself into a study of acts of violence at the hands of religious fundamentalists. If he ever writes the book he intended to write, I’d love to read it. And in the meantime, will gladly read some of the other things he’s written because even though I’m not a huge fan of the nonfiction, Krakauer has had some major success in reminding me that truth is stranger than fiction. -
Somehow, in Krakauer's and every other story of Christian fundamentalism and extremism that is exposed, those involved justification for doing evil and ignoring good is all founded on extreme and polarizing doctrines. Polygamy. Holy Wars. Visions. Revelation. Line of succession. All legitimate things to think and worry about, but they seem to completely ignore the important things that Christ taught while on earth. Say...something like....blessed are the peacemakers. And loving our neighbors. And repentance, hope, forgiveness, charity and love. I think until we master these, the mysteries and promise of further knowledge is a long ways away.
Kraukauer argues that religion, particularly the history of the LDS religion is prone to produce extremists who do more harm than good. Much like that of Islamic fundamentalists, the religion's history is one of violence and secrecy.
I can't say he is entirely wrong. I do think there is a propensity for believers to fall into extreme behavior. However, while Krakauer believes it has something to do with the doctrine or leaders, I believe it is entirely due to opposition.
Good things - the best things - are perverted the most.
Religion, a means to learn about and worship God. And yet, so much evil, so much harm throughout history to His children has been brought about by its name. I don't believe any evil has been done by those truly devoted to God. I really don't. It has all been done by those influenced, knowingly or not, by the great deceiver, Satan. I think those who don't believe, like Krakauer himself, find it awfully easy to find fault with faith, with religion, because they focus and magnify the imperfections of man. He translates it into an imperfect or non-existent God, which is easy for him to do. He has the proof. Look! This man murdered his sister-in-law! That is no God I believe in. Well, Jon, neither do I.
In fact, every single one of his sources was a dissenter or apostate...as if they had the inside track to truth. Shading, innuendo, rumors and hearsay are all given as proof and fact of corruption and deception.
While I'm not naive enough to think that the LDS church has no black eyes in its history, I can't admire a critic who presents only one side of a story. Krakauer commits a real blunder by limiting the story of faith to people who claim none or have an extremely warped sense of it. And he certainly didn't provide justice to my cousin's story.
Brenda Lafferty's story was a story about the LDS faith. Of goodness. Of kindness and strength in helping her neighbor. Of a willingness to stand up to evil and unholiness. Brenda Lafferty's story is the real story of a believer. -
4****
But men have been committing heinous acts in the name of God ever since mankind began believing in deities, and extremists exist within all religions…. Plenty of these religious extremists have been homegrown, corn-fed Americans.
This was truly one of the most bizarre and weirdest books I have ever read.
At first, picking up this book I thought this was a true crime book about the murders of Erica and Brenda Lafferty. But it was just not that. It was a deep dive into Mormonism and especially fundamental Mormon beliefs.
Before starting this, I knew next to nothing about Mormonism other than what I had learned from a South Park episode… which might not be the best reliance for information.
This delved into this curious subjects. The forming of the religion, it’s history (especially the more bloodier history that the heads of the Mormon church want to omit), the sects that formed away from mainstream Mormonism, and those that left the religion.
This also focused on the murders of Brenda and Erica Lafferty, planned and committed by Brenda’s brothers-in-law, Dan and Rob Lafferty. Both argue that these murders were ordered by “divine revelation”- God had told Rob and Dan to commit these murders.
Most of this book had me thinking “what the fuck!?” especially in relation to polygamy, the suppression of important history, incest and harm to the many girls/women of the fundamentalist community. It also had me wide eyed at how the level of control of the fundamentalist religion spread through courts, police stations, towns; so that when girls reported a rape or tried to run away, they were punished and returned to their abusers.
Brenda Lafferty did not want to submit to the fundamentalist Mormon beliefs that her in-laws held, and for this, as well as her outspoken ways and helping other women leave their abusive husbands, she was murdered. -
Somewhere, there is a story aching to be told about Mormonism, the positive and negative effects of religious faith on thought and psychological development, the painting of an integrated mainstream with the tarred brush of extremist fringes, and the general place of religion in US culture. This book is oh, so totally not it.
-
Really eye-opening!
-
Isn’t it funny, an amazing coincidence, how the commandments of God so often match the desires, ambitions and bigotries of His self-proclaimed prophets? Feeling horny? That’s cool, God is down with polygamy, bone away to your heart’s content, sin-free! Like drugs? So does God! Smoke up, bro! Hate women? God is so totally over those uppity chicks, dude. Racist? Oh boy this is your lucky day, God is totally racist! Not racist? Wait, God changed his mind, he was just fooling ya. Did that guy just flip you off? The nerve of him. Wait a sec, what’s that God, oh, that guy that just pissed me off is Your enemy and it’s ok to kill him? Nice.
Though I am an atheist, I’ve never had a problem with the idea of religion and faith. I think that people have a right to believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t harm others. A tepid position maybe, since it can be very difficult to determine exactly what constitutes ‘harming others’, but I just can’t get behind the rabid condemnation of all religion. Faith, to me, should be an entirely personal thing. I’ve always been suspicious of anyone claiming to have special access to the Truth. I have a really, really hard time understanding the mindset of a true zealot, because there is not a single area of life in which I don’t have some doubts. I simply cannot fathom the mind of a person who claims to KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that God has spoken to them. And for that reason, this book was a difficult read for me.
That isn’t a criticism. Krakaeur is an engaging and informative writer, and he lays out the general history of the Mormon Church and many of it’s fundamentalist offshoots, as well as the gruesome double-murder of a mother and her infant daughter by fundamentalist Mormon brothers, with clarity and precision. Though I’m sure, from a Mormon point-of-view, there are many things to criticise (I’m vaguely aware of some controversy surrounding this book and it’s reception by the LDS community), and it isn’t terribly difficult to determine what Krakauer’s opinion is, I think he made an effort to present things as fairly as possible. He uses officially sanctioned LDS accounts as well as other independent sources in his recounting of the history of the cult, from it’s inception through to it’s formal abandonment of polygamy. He interviews a wide range of people, letting them speak for themselves, in their own words, interjecting only for clarification, or when their claims are contradicted by other accounts, or basic facts. He very methodically and convincingly lays out exactly how and why a pair of brothers might come to believe that God has commanded them to commit murder, and his account of the murders themselves are raw, brutal and powerful.
My difficulty instead came from simply having to spend time with these people. I’m not a good debater. I lose my temper quickly, which makes it difficult to articulate my points coherently, which then further frustrates and angers me, but at least I can sometimes have the satisfaction of venting my ire. But reading the thoughts and opinions of people I strenuously, venomously disagree with robs me of even that. I want to throw the book across the room. I want to rant and rage at these smug, self satisfied assholes, and shatter their ludicrous, harmful beliefs. I want all this knowing that it won’t help, that for you simply cannot reach people like this, and that only compounds my anger and frustration. The inability to admit to mistakes is a common part of the human condition, and isn’t limited to religious people, but the sheer depth of delusion portrayed in this book, and the amount of suffering and harm it has caused and continues to cause, was infuriating to me. And that made the book difficult to read at times, particularly when Krakauer, meticulous to a fault, goes perhaps a little overboard with the details.
Thankfully, Krakauer ends things only a slightly satisfying note. Does the enlightenment and hard-won intellectual freedom of a single person outweigh the heinous cycle of violence, misogyny, indoctrination and abuse repeated throughout the book? No, of course not, but it’s at least a reminder that, no matter how fervent the faith, there will always be some who question it.
