- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My boss at work struck up a conversation with me the other day asking why I don’t drink alcohol, which without detail I simply said religious reasons. He pressed further and I explained I was Mormon, so he said I should read this book by Krakauer which he thought was fascinating. Then he said, “oh, maybe you shouldn’t. Your church leaders have banned you from reading this, huh?” I hadn’t heard of the book, but told him no one can tell me what to read and what not to. Gimme the book. So I read it and responded with the following letter when I returned it to him. Over all, my review is I don’t really recommend the book. It tried to explain the horrific events from the author’s unbiased view and just presenting the facts, but I felt as the book went on, it did start to get fixated on polygamy and mormon violence. I’m glad I read it, but wouldn’t recommend it as a way to find truth.
Anyway, here is what I wrote back to him:
I thought I’d share with you my views after reading the book, since you may find that interesting to hear from an actual church member (not a letter from the church office on reviewing the book as was presented in the end of the book, which I thought was a nice addition. The author didn’t have to include that, but it was good to read that and his response to that).
From my perspective, the beginning of the book started with the author taking certain liberties to try to portray Mormonism in a radical and outlandish fashion:
-Strict obedience is required of all mormons to the church leaders at all costs and strict obedience of wives to their domineering husbands;
-Fighting for our rights and being defiant of the laws of the land, as if to suggest Mormons were taught from persecution to be a violent people, which is why the Laffertys were the way they were;
-Polygamy is at the core of the doctrine from church founders and is most important of religious teachings in the mormon faith.
I think he did this to try to draw a connection between the murders and the religious history. As I read it, however, it was a bit difficult for me to read certain parts because I kept telling myself – this isn’t really right explanations of mormon doctrine and beliefs. It’s close, and I can see how he makes some judgments based on some historical facts and quotes of early church leaders, but the meaning has been lost or distorted some and it really isn’t a fair explanation of things.
Polygamy was never central to the teachings of the church, and never has been. Christ is the center and always will be. The Book of Mormon does not teach about polygamy, it teaches of Jesus Christ’s ministry to ancient inhabitants of North America. I really feel the book gave way too much emphasis on Polygamy and violence.
My family history includes ancestors being converted by mormon missionaries in the early 1800s in England, immigrating to the US, and then in handcarts, walked across the US plains to Salt Lake. Some lost their life during the trek. Never in any journals of family ancestors in any time before or after reaching Salt Lake, were my ancestors involved in polygamy. I think that many other families did, but it wasn’t central to the religion’s teachings.
Instead, the church teaches men to be Christ-like and loving and caring towards women and children. The opportunity to hold the Priesthood for men is a privilege upon worthiness. Instead, the true teachings we regularly hear is the Priesthood is a calling to serve others, not domineer over anyone.
For example, in the Book of Mormon scriptures, one prophet and king (King Benjamin) taught the people as he was getting ready to die and transfer leadership to the next prophet:
17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?
19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King! (see Mosiah Chapter 2, verses 10-19).
In another passage of scripture, from the Doctrine and Covenants, which were compiled by Joseph Smith, we are taught about how Priesthood holders should act:
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
(Doctrine and Covenants Section 121, v.41-43)
I felt like Krakauer unfairly parallels fundamentalists like Warren Jeffs and crazy people like the Lafferty’s and those wackos who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart with mainstream Mormonism. Surely all religions have crazy zealots who take bits of truth and twist it for their own purposes and designs. I don’t think the author fairly depicted that as the Laffertys started down that path, they were excommunicated and separated from the Church because they were going directly against Church policy. And when you see how these men conducted themselves in jail and in the courtroom, you can’t really believe they were true followers of any Christian faith based on their behavior.
Most of Krakauer’s material and reference came from authors, and indeed the guilty inmates who committed the gruesome murders in cold blood, and were guilty of such in a court of law, not from church sources or active church members and so it does not really present an unbiased and fair portrayal of historical events. I think it would have been more balanced if historical events were presented in context of the times. You know, during the 1800’s on the frontier-lands, it was not always a civilized and peaceful place. Yet somehow the tone of many chapters seemed to me to be how Mormons were focused on violence and blood in response to the persecutions, yet not much historical background was given to the persecutors or the society and culture surrounding the Mormons, to show whether Mormons were more likely to be violent or less likely to be violent than other people in the US at that time. Instead, it kind of painted a picture that Mormons became violent and intolerable of others, which then drew parallels to a psycho-murderous group of brothers as if that was a natural result of the Mormon way of life.
Even so, it was an interesting read and presents some interesting perspectives, but from a life-long mormon, many of the facts are questionable in their source and the author’s interpretation of the events.
My summary: Krakauer wrote the book in order to prove something he assumed and built his evidence specifically to prove his assumption. It really isn’t more complicated than that.
I agree wholeheartedly that extremism can lead to violence, but there are incredibly serious research issues with this book. It simply started with an extreme assumption and ignored all evidence to the contrary.
I personally would never recommend the book to anyone. I find it way too biased and flawed. If someone has read it and wants to talk about it, I ask them to give it to me and let me underline all questionable assertions and assumptions. By the time I finish with the introduction and first chapter, it is obvious the depth of the problems in the book.
Reading Under the Banner of Heaven to understand Mormonism would be like reading The DaVinci Code to understand Catholicism. And both were designed for the same reason: to sell books through sensationalistic conspiracy theories. But I did like The DaVinci Code. The thing I find irritating about DaVinci Code, though, is that many took it to be well-researched when in reality, no serious scholars considered Dan Brown’s sources to be reputable. Quote:Ray wrote:
Krakauer wrote the book in order to prove something he assumed and built his evidence specifically to prove his assumption
Ok, good. I hoped it wasn’t just me revealing to my friend how biased I was and unable to think beyond the mormon view. I really tried to be open minded, but I think you said it best. He had a murder story, and an assumption about the Laffertys and then built his argument and research to fit that, as you said Ray. It was inaccurately written.
Quote:Hawkgrrrl:
Reading Under the Banner of Heaven to understand Mormonism would be like reading The DaVinci Code to understand Catholicism.
I wished I had that line to tell my boss instead of the multiple paragraphs I wrote. That sums it up perfectly!! He was trying to sell books and told a good story with dramatization and stretches of assertions, not be historically accurate.
Thanks for both your responses.
Well, this confirms it, I most likely won’t waste my time on this book. I had considered it, but read quite a few things to this same effect. hawkgrrrl wrote:Reading Under the Banner of Heaven to understand Mormonism would be like reading The DaVinci Code to understand Catholicism. And both were designed for the same reason: to sell books through sensationalistic conspiracy theories. But I did like The DaVinci Code. The thing I find irritating about DaVinci Code, though, is that many took it to be well-researched when in reality, no serious scholars considered Dan Brown’s sources to be reputable.
That was the best comparison I have seen to date.
We own this book, and I hate it. I usually don’t say that about books or authors, but Krakauer really irritates me. He is neither a historian nor a theologian. He writes sensational adventure stories. He combined all the sensationalism of the Lafferty murder case, and the contoversy of Mormon history to paint a tabloid picture to sell books.
Krakauer’s premise is this: All people that belong to an organized religion are one small step away from becoming homicidal maniacs. All it takes is a leader to issue the order, and peaceful religious people will butcher others because they are that stupid and controlled. It isn’t even just the “extremist” factions, but religion itself that Krakauer attacks. He used the Mormons as the example. It doesn’t even matter that the Laffertys were banished from the Mormon community (excommunicated) early on in the story, they somehow still create the perfect sample of “normal” and “average” in the LDS community. See, we are all just like them deep down. All it takes is a few words from a Bishop or GA, a deluded dream, or a pretend vision… and we would all march to the orders and kill.
The books is just plain insulting to all the billions of people in history that have used religion as a tool to create a life of peace, love and charity. Somehow Krakauer can’t remember people like Ghandi, Mother Teresa, The Dalai Lama, brave Christians that risked their lives hiding Jews in their homes to save them from the Nazi’s, and all the other beautiful and wonderful examples of pure religion that are everywhere to see. He doesn’t want to see that. Those examples don’t sell his books.
Quote:It doesn’t even matter that the Laffertys were banished from the Mormon community (excommunicated) early on in the story
Valoel, that was the thing that struck me first off. They were excommunicated and I couldn’t believe the author didn’t draw that line between modern normal LDS church and the church of a 100 years ago. These guys were insane and he just presented it as if they were rational based on their religion that makes people that way. I also hated that he would jump back to the 1800s, fronteirland and then jump back to the 1990s as if those clearly connect without any gaps. I liked the beginning part when the facts of the Laffertys presented an interesting CSI type atmosphere, but then he quickly lost me when all the assumptions were made from church historical events and only used sources that would naturally be biased against the church.
Thanks for adding your comments. So far, it has been kind of unanimous in that it was a book to make a profit and unfairly capitalizes on stereotypes of mormons.
I read this book a couple years ago at the request of my dh. He was really upset by the book and ended up asking me if I would ever kill him because of religion. He was really paranoid about what the book had said and was worried that the church was stalking him or that me or my family might go into a religious frenzy and kill him. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought the book was over reaching. I didn’t really have any counter arguments to my dh though. I didn’t know what to say to any of the topics in the book. I don’t have a whole lot of time to research the history either because I have two young kids and I am going to school full time while working part time. If anyone has any advice on where to look to point out some of the fallacies in the book it would be great. Happymom, read Valoel’s commentary on inserting a racial group instead of “Mormons” on the thread about ‘the wisdom of the crowd”. It’s one of the best critiques I’ve read, and it’s concise! Seriously, if he can understand what Valoel said, he won’t need a detailed review. However, I’m sure there’s a pretty good critique on FAIR or FARMS, as much as I generally don’t direct people there for lots of things. The book just is such an easy target.
I read this book recently, and it was one of the last straws for me in deciding I didn’t believe in the church anymore. (I’ve since recanted that and am now trying to stay in the church, though it is still an ongoing struggle). For me, it wasn’t necessarily the overly sensational and gruesome story, which I found emotionally disturbing. For me, it was the simple fact that people could talk themselves into anything. Basically, the crux is this: how is my religious experience any more or less valid than the Lafferty’s (which I see as horribly sick and wrong)? Why should I trust my own ‘burning in the bosom’ experiences that tell me the LDS church is good/true, if other people have similar experiences that tell them something different or completely opposite?
That’s what I got out of the book, anyway. Did anyone else have any similar response? And, since this site is devoted to staying LDS, can you help me answer my questions positively?
JustMike wrote:Basically, the crux is this: how is my religious experience any more or less valid than the Lafferty’s (which I see as horribly sick and wrong)? Why should I trust my own ‘burning in the bosom’ experiences that tell me the LDS church is good/true, if other people have similar experiences that tell them something different or completely opposite?
That’s what I got out of the book, anyway. Did anyone else have any similar response? And, since this site is devoted to staying LDS, can you help me answer my questions positively?
JustMike, I’m glad you brought that up and posted those questions. You know, that was one thing that made me think about the book, and especially in the beginning when it went through the Laffertys and their situation. There were church history things that I wasn’t aware of before reading the book, so that opened my eyes too.
For me, it really peaked my interest when he quoted some of the revelations that the older Lafferty guy had. The way they were worded and the things it said sounded very mucy like a D&C section. It made me ask the same questions. Is that any different than what Joseph Smith received? Then in response, too many TBMs just say, “Well the devil can cause evil spirits to trick people” (which line of thinking doesn’t satisfy me) – and I thought, how would anyone really know anything that comes from God or the devil, and how do I know about my own revelations? Is it all a crock and a lie? Furthermore, I was reading it just as I was going through my own struggles of having answers to prayers that seemed to turn out HORRIBLY, and then not receiving answers when I was in a crisis. That is when Ray introduced me to this site, as I was doubting any revelation from God ever really happens, it could just be all in our heads!
My resolution to that was to first remember I have really had some incredible spiritual experiences, and I can’t deny those happened. Secondly, other people can say whatever they want about their revelations. I can’t take anything at face value. Even when I have a burning in the bosom, because spiritual things require faith, I never really know 100% until I see the outcome, and even then it is hard to know what/when the final outcome of a situation is. And so it has made me learn to rethink my TBM nature, and not to rely so much on “mystical” forces, but also NOT dismiss them all together. I now view myself as a complex being, someone who has physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual needs, and one area of my life can’t dominate the others, they must all be in balance.
Anyway, there are lots of conundrums and difficulties about life that make it complex, but bottom line, I look to see if the revelations feel right, but also the surrounding context to know if they make sense to me in general. If they are hate driven, or pride driven, or discriminatory/judgmental or un-Chirst-like in any way…I can reject those. If they are filled with love and lead me to be a better person, and make me feel better and more peaceful and closer to God, I want to accept those.
I could go on longer, but that was my general breakthrough. Mormons aren’t like the Laffertys. Instead I think there are lots of quacks like the Laffertys in the world, whether mormon, muslim, athiest, or whatever. I mean, look at how the Laffertys changed? That was my criticism of Krakauer, he seemed to read into all these historical evidences to explain behavior, while completely ignoring the obviouis: how the Laffertys went from active church members who were loving husbands and fathers, to beating their wives, deserting their kids and families, smoking pot and taking drugs, and drifting across the country like low lives with foul language and evil-crazy natures. Instead of stating the obvious, that they went psychotic, he chose to try to build a case that all mormons are just one step away from becoming such, and it was the religion that pushed them that way, so be careful of your mormon neighbor, they could become that way too.
Good begets good, evil begets evil. True revelation from God doesn’t beget evil.
So I dismissed the book, and just have to remember that I must develop my own character to never justify what I want with scripture or revelation, but have a pure heart and honestly seek truth, no matter where I find it. And I can do that in the Church, while being a free-thinker to grow personally to find happiness in life and never let a religion or other control me. Instead, I choose to stay in the church, and pull from the church the virtues that help me and my family, and dismiss the rest.
Does that answer any of your questions?
JustMike wrote:Why should I trust my own ‘burning in the bosom’ experiences that tell me the LDS church is good/true, if other people have similar experiences that tell them something different or completely opposite?
That’s what I got out of the book, anyway. Did anyone else have any similar response?
I did have a very similar response to the book,which I read very recently (I checked it out from the library and it’s still not due back)
I grew up in a small “Mormon settlement” town and the line between the mainstream church and fundamentalists was very, very thin. Even in the 1980’s. There was regularly little groups that cropped up based on various “movements”: anti-government groups (stopped paying taxes, took names off social security), self-sustaining groups (getting off “the grid”, ten-year supplies, home schooling) and, yes, polygamist groups. So, the world of the Lafferty’s did exist and, at least in small towns, was fairly prominent. All these people felt like they were being led by the Spirit in making these decisions. They were mostly very active TBM’s. I have no idea what to say about that except, like you, we all have our journey and you try to do your best with the light that God has given each of us.
I’ll be the lone defender of Krakauer. I totally agree with Ray that he had a thesis and went about trying to prove it. That is what most “investigative journalists” do and I’m not sure he was successful but, on it’s face, it is a compelling thesis. There is alot of Old Testament-style writings in the early church, especially D&C (eg. end of Sec. 132 if you don’t obey God’s plan for polygamy) and B.Y. Of course, the most damning evidence that I’m sure justified the Lafferty’s to themselves was the Laban story. Like Heber said, this is a very narrow view of the Mormon experience which makes it feel very unfair but Krakauer was trying to prove his thesis so…. And, if you live in the right place at the right time, it might not feel so narrow. (my hometown)
Lastly, “Into the Wild” is by far the best book, movie, soundtrack combination in the history of media.
😆 Krakauer, Penn, Vedder.😈 😈 😈 (DO NOT mention this in EQ)Quote:if you live in the right place at the right time, it might not feel so narrow. (my hometown)
Swim,
did anyone from your hometown commit gruesome murders in the name of God?
Am I to fear you may be that kind of person too? I mean, you did grow up in that environment which seems to teach people those things.
Heber13 wrote:
did anyone from your hometown commit gruesome murders in the name of God?Am I to fear you may be that kind of person too? I mean, you did grow up in that environment which seems to teach people those things.
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, funny, or mocking. I’ll take each individually.
Sarcastic: You should fear me if you will cause a nation to dwindle in unbelief.
Funny: Whiskey Tango is always capable of anything. Don’t test this theory.
Mocking: I’m not making excuses for the Lafferty’s or making generalizations that you must be this way if you grew up where I did. If your personality type is such that you view the world as black and white, then you are susceptible to dangerous thinking that could lead to dangerous actions. (recent abortion doctor killer comes to mind, or holocaust museum shooter, whiskey tango both)
Finally, you can take the boy out of the trailer park, but you can’t take the trailer park out of the boy.
Knowing what little I know of Heber13, I’m quite certain that was an attempt at humor. (If not, Heber13, it’s OK to change your mind and claim it was humorous the whole time. 😆 )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.