[ESP/ENG]

n  Sí, así dice un voz aún pequeña, que susurra a través de todas las cosas y las atraviesa, y hace a menudo temblar mis huesos cuando se manifiesta, diciendo: "Y he aquí que vendrá a suceder que yo, el señor Dios, enviaré a uno poderoso y fuerte para poner en orden la casa de Dios"n

Y con una cita así de sencilla, la que se puede llegar a montar...

Esta reseña, aunque todas lo son, es muy subjetiva, y tengo que decir que he sentido defraudado por las cosas que venía buscando. Tal vez leyéndolo de otra manera hubiese sido una lectura más ilustrativa, pero no me ha dado lo que pedía. Nos ponemos en contexto:

Tras la miniserie llamada igual (Under the banner of heaven en su versión original), quise saber más de este truculento caso que incluye fanatismo religioso, una comunidad muy cerrada y una investigación que me pareció correcta pero falta de desarrollo. Siendo éste el libro en que se basa pensé que tendría más desarrollo, más investigación, y su portada doce textualmente: "La mejor reconstrucción de crímenes en serie desde A sangre fría de Truman Capote, por el aclamado autor del bestseller Mal de altura". Craso error, porque de reconstrucción tiene poco, y de hecho ni siquiera se habla de los policías que llevaron el caso.

Es un muy interesante estudio sobre la religión mormona, con su historia desde su fundación, pasando por su auge, y sus múltiples escisiones en grupos que creen cada uno una cosa diferente. Y si hubiese entrado por este tema, habría disfrutado de su lectura. Pero como no era el caso, y este tema me es bastante indiferente, ha acabado siendo más un sufrimiento.

Todo parte del asesinato de Brenda Lafferty y su hijita Erica de una manera bastante brutal, y sí conocemos el desenlace y culpable/s. Pero una vez nos cuenta esto el autor en las primeras 15 páginas, luego relata la aparición del mormonismo durante otras 150, para volver al caso en un capítulo y dejarlo de nuevo otras 80 páginas aproximadamente. Y poco puedo decir de ello que no sea repetirme. Así que resumiendo:

No es culpa del libro sino de cómo se vende, y de mis propias expectativas. Pero si quieres información sobre el caso busca en otro sitio. Eso sí, si es para saber más sobre esta religión y algunos debates sobre fundamentalismos, sí puedes acercarte.

Para todo lo demás, y sin que sirva de precedente, la miniserie es mucho mejor.


--------------

Sorry about the quote and titles, I read the book translated.

n  Yes, so says a still small voice, which whispers through all things and passes through them, and often makes my bones tremble when it manifests itself, saying: "And behold, it will come to pass that I Lord God, I will send one mighty and strong to set the house of God in order"n

And with such a simple quote, a lot of people took it for the worse.

This review, although all of them are, is very subjective, and I have to say that I have felt disappointed by the things I was looking for. Perhaps reading it in another way would have been a more illustrative reading, but it has not given me what I asked for. Let's put ourselves in context:

After the miniseries called the same, I wanted to know more about this gruesome case that includes religious fanaticism, a very closed community and an investigation that seemed correct but lacked development. Being this the book on which it is based I thought it would have more development, more research, and its cover say verbatim: "The best reconstruction of serial crimes since Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, by the acclaimed author from the bestseller Altitude Sickness". A big mistake, because it has little to do with reconstruction, and in fact the police officers who handled the case are not even mentioned.

It is a very interesting study of the Mormon religion, with its history from its founding, through its rise, and its multiple splits into groups that each believe a different thing. And if I had arrived at this book through this topic, I would have enjoyed reading it. But since it was not the case, and this topic is quite indifferent to me, it has ended up being more of a suffering.

All starts with the murder of Brenda Lafferty and her little daughter Erica in a pretty brutal way, and we do know the outcome and the culprit/s. But once the author tells us this in the first 15 pages, then recounts the appearance of Mormonism for another 150, to return to the case in a chapter and leave it again another 80 pages or so. And I can say little about it other than repeating myself. So summarizing:

It's not the fault of the book but of how it is sold, and of my own expectations. But if you want information on the case look elsewhere. But if you want to know more about this religion and some debates about fundamentalisms, you can approach the book.

For everything else, and without precedent, the miniseries is much better.

Audiobook narrated by Scott Brick

In the summer of 1984 a young mother and her 15-month-old daughter were brutally slain in their home. Everyone knew who did it. But the reason the murderers committed the acts, and the reasons why no one who knew of their plan in advance came forward to warn the victims, are what really set this violent crime apart.

Krakauer has done considerable research to try to make sense of the thinking behind Don and Ron Lafferty’s actions. At the root is their strong beliefs, nurtured by a fundamentalist sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Bear in mind that the mainstream LDS Church does NOT condone this type of behavior or extreme thinking, but the history of the LDS religion is rife with calls to violent action. Krakauer explores this history and relates it to the extreme fundamentalists who have broken off into various sects, many members of which are as intent on waging a holy war against America as are the jihadists of the Islamic faith.

It’s a fascinating, frightening and totally engrossing story. Krakauer excels at turning his years of research into a gripping narrative.

Scott Brick does a fine job performing the audio version of this book. He has a brisk pace, which maintains tension and keeps the narrative moving forward, even with the many footnotes.

3- Jon Krakauer is an important and unique voice in true crime. Under the Banner is much dryer than Missoula, the first book of his I read. It reads like a long, terrifying, frustrating history lesson.

I wrote this in January 2007:

In the appendix to the anchor addition of Jon Krakauer's fascinating
"Under the Banner of Heaven," the author warns against the dangers
inherent in the decision of the Mormon leadership to deliberately
control "how the Mormon past is interpreted and presented." Krakauer
loudly advocates for "a vigorous, unfettered examination of
Mormondom's rich and fascinating past." Such a call could be more
widely applied to the discipline of American History in general. His
is a counternarrative, aimed at challenging accepted doctrine, no
different than the varied multicultural histories that gained
ascendancy as a result of the sixties social movements (most famously,
Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States) and which served
to challenge the sanitized top-down model told in the textbooks of
American school children, a history in which the noble white European
colonists and pilgrims tamed and civilized the vast western frontier,
manifestly destined to bring the fruits of Christianity to any savage
Indians or African slaves they might encounter. As a social studies
teacher committed to helping my students develop critical and
analytical thinking skills, I could not have been more pleased with
Krakauer's parting words. In fact, as a vehicle for stressing the
importance of critical thinking, "Under the Banner of Heaven" works
very well: the implicit moral is that there is a great danger in the
illusion of literalism. The story of Mormonism provides the perfect
backdrop to elucidate the absurdity of fundamentalism within any
religion. As any good historian knows, it is in fact not possible to
read any text absolutely literally. Any textual passage must be read
with close attention paid to its literary and historical context.
What did Joseph Smith intend by the prophecy regarding polygamy? How
did he intend this prophecy to be practiced by his parishioners a
century after his death? The first question can be debated by
examining existing documents from the time period (which are closely
guarded by LDS watchdogs), the second is merely a matter of
speculation. The truth is that truth, particularly biblical truth,
can never be fully known. Applying the tools of history to the
purview of religion casts doubt on that one aspect of our personal
lives where we are often encouraged to accept on faith. It thus seems
that this nation was founded on two traditions at odds with each
other: democracy, dependent on critical inquiry, and Christianity,
dependent on unquestioning acceptance. To you who has been raised
with religious tradition, is this an unfair characterization of
religion?
Krakauer certainly raises some unsettling questions, particularly when
examining mental illness. In the introduction to the chapter on
Lafferty's court case, Krakauer quotes Anthony Starr, who asks "How
does one distinguish an unorthodox or bizarre faith from delusion?"
How indeed. Perhaps it is Ron and Dan Lafferty who see reality, and
the rest of us who see only the shadows on the wall. Further, in what
instances is it acceptable to obey a higher law, and in what cases is
it not? Krakauer begins his book by quoting John Taylor, the
president of the Saints, who in 1880 proclaimed, "I defy the United
States; I will obey God." We celebrate Martin Luther King, who penned
similar words from the confines of his Birmingham jail cell in 1963.
What makes one the one a hero but the other a curiosity, if not a
pariah?
I will conclude by stating that when I was a student at Grinnell,
Religious studies did not interest me. At the time, I viewed it as a
discipline for those who were themselves religious, or who had been
born and raised in a particular religious tradition. After recently
completing a unit on World Religions in my World History class and
completing this book, I have a developed an appreciation for the field
and a curiosity to further examine the relationship between religion
and history, religion and psychology. The vast majority of the world
places their faith in religion despite the fact that historians have
limited knowledge regarding the genesis of these traditions. For
better or worse, that is a reality non-believers and believers,
fundamentalist or not, will have to grapple with, if we ever hope to
coexist peacefully.

Really eye-opening!

No one adjective can describe this book, instead let me say it was illuminating, compelling, fascinating and terrifying. It was extremely well researched and even handed. While Krakauer presented the history and facts, he allowed the reader to form his or her own opinion.

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.

DNF @ 50%

This book ended up being way more disturbing than I anticipated. It was however still incredibly compelling and I often felt like I couldn't put it down.

Krakauer spent most of the book talking about the origins of religious fanaticism in the church of LDS, and how their tenets of continuous religious revelations + absolute obedience led to polygamy, the systemic abuse of girls and women and eventually outbreaks of extreme violence.

This book presented a lot of different scenarios that were really disturbing and often hard to read. These scenarios ranged from dads giving away their little girls to grown men. Then to a woman hearing her sister is being abused and convincing the sister to stay in the marriage because it would be against the religion to leave the husband (only for the sister to end up murdered by her abuser). Then even to the grandmothers serving lunch to members of the religion who are openly plotting the murder of her daughter-in law and her 15mo baby granddaughter.

Its heavy to read, but also extremely interesting. It got true crime-y, which I didn't expect, but I'm realizing I apparently really like. It really makes you want to continuously be suspicious of organized religion and any person speaking with religious authority

I wouldn't be surprised if Krakauer's first books were fiction novels, which I don't think they are, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. Why? This book reads like a novel, a very confusing novel, but a novel nonetheless.

First things first, there should have been some sort of family tree or timeline or some sort of organizational medium provided besides a map. By the end of the book you have so many people and so many families roaming around you no longer really know who's who except for Joseph Smith.

I also didn't like how we kept jumping around. One minute we're talking about Ron Lafferty trying to kill himself in his jail cell and then suddenly we're hearing about how Joseph Smith found the golden plates in the dirt. In a history such as this one, I would have much perferred a straight-thru shot of everything, rather than this somewhat confusing bundle that was presented to me.

One last thing, while I completely understand the neccessity of recounting the history of the Mormon church so it's easier to comprehend the different factions of the church that are out there know and understand their various reasonings, there were certain storylines that only served to confuse more, rather than add to this journey.

The book does not put the Mormon church in it's entirety into a bad light, so if you're Mormon, don't let it deterr you from reading this book. Krakauer, while shining light on the wrong the church and it's split-offs have done, he also shows the wrong that's been done to the church and the persecution it's had to go through since it's conception.

The whole book is shocking and makes you think, but it's not until the end when we get to the argument of whether or not Ron Lafferty should be declared insane, that you really sit up in interest. It presented a serious problem: If Ron was judged insane, then nearly everyone with a religious conviction of any degree could therefor also be seen as insane. It was that moment that really brought the book together, I felt. Which is sad, because while an interesting and informational read, there wasn't much else to the book until the end when this problem was presented.

Read the book, like I said, it's an interesting if not entertaining read and really sheds some light on a religion not many people REALLY understand outside of stupid stereotypes.

3.5

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,...