“It is the aim of this book to cast some light on Lafferty and his ilk. If trying to understand such people is a daunting exercise, it also seems a useful one—for what it may tell us about the roots of brutality, perhaps, but even more for what might be learned about the nature of faith.” – Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven

Jon Krakauer tells the story of extremist views held by the Fundamentalist LDS (FLDS) movement, which led to the horrific murder of a woman and her fifteen-month-old daughter by her brothers-in-law. He weaves in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), starting with founder Joseph Smith and how they evolved into the mainstream modern Mormon religion of today.

I found the FLDS story extremely disturbing – yet another example of horrible cruelty and murder done in the “name of God” by self-proclaimed prophets. In addition, the FLDS members taking underage girls as plural “wives” is mind-boggling. The book is successful in engendering a sense of outrage.

The Mormon history includes the foundational stories, Brigham Young’s leadership upon the death of Joseph Smith, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, relocations to various states before settling in Utah, and the eventual elimination of polygamy. Krakauer points out that the modern LDS does not condone polygamy or other practices of the FLDS.

My primary issue with the book and reason for not rating it higher is that the stated aim is only partially achieved, and the structure is puzzling. The storyline switches between FLDS and LDS segments, but I could not discern a logical progression. Granted, the FLDS movement wanted to go back to some of the original tenets espoused by Joseph Smith, but the brutal double murder was not a direct outcome. It was based on the extremism of a delusional “prophet” claiming to speak for God.

To me, it illustrates the dangers of cults. It is definitely not for the faint of heart. I have read and enjoyed Krakauer’s Into the Wild and Into Thin Air and recommend either book ahead of this one.

TRIGGER WARNINGS: rape, incest, domestic abuse, child abuse, animal abuse, infant murder

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.

I struggled with this one unlike Into Thin Air or Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer.

I think my expectations were a bit high when I went into this one.

I was hoping to have more information on the murders of Brenda Wright Lafferty and her 15-month-old daughter Erica, but this didn’t come to fruition until closer to the end.

Under the Banner of Heaven was more of a history lesson on the LDS church, how it was founded, and how FLDS branched off of the original faith.

I understand that Krakauer needed to give some historical information and understanding of Mormonism to show basis and intent on why Ron & Dan Lafferty used religion to justify the murders, I just think it was more then I needed.

So, take my advice on this one.

Go into Under the Banner of Heaven more for the history of the Mormon faith and not a true crime book.
I think you’ll enjoy it more than I did.

One of the scariest books I have ever read.

DNF. And I am rating it. Because I read enough! Usually I would give one star to books I DNF if I rate them. But I’m giving two because it’s not like the writing itself was bad as far as grammar, etc.

I’ve tried twice with this book and I just…give up. I’m putting it in the thrift store pile. May it find a happier next owner.

I really liked the two other books I read by this author. (Into the Wild and Missoula.) So when I couldn’t get into this one the first time I tried reading it years ago, I chalked it up to my mood at the time. But with this second attempt going the same way, I know it’s not my mood. It’s the book.

First off this book is so dry. The only solace I found in that was that it helped me fall asleep. But I started avoiding reading it, so that didn’t help too many times.

Secondly, this book didn’t know what it wanted to be. I thought I was getting a true crime novel. But barely any time was spent on that. Instead, there were chapters and chapters of backstory on the whole history of Mormonism. How it started and how the Fundamentalists Mormons splintered away from the church. I get that we needed to know some of that. But it was just so much.

And it would go back and forth between the early Mormons and then the Fundamentalists and then the time of the crime. There were lengthy sections on different gross old guys and their wives. That didn’t seem to serve a purpose except to say that polygamy is a shit show. Noted. Then it would end. And it would go to the time leading up to the crime for a brief moment. Then suddenly we would be back at original prophet Joseph Smith time. Cool…you again eh?

I found it to be a big mess that was hard to keep track of and so boring that at this point I no longer wish to keep track of. I’m just going to watch the Hulu show with Spiderman. (Andrew Garfield

Actual footage of me while listening to this one . . .

n  n

Okay, not really since I listen while walking, but boy oh boy did I really not have the same experience as nearly everyone else did.

In my defense, I didn’t know much about this before diving in aside from (a) I have had it on my TBR for eons thinking I would read it every time “Nonfiction November” rolled around (b) I thought it was a true crime book about a murder committed by fundamentalists and (c) I’m sort of obsessed with all things polygamy (excluding Sister Wives because Kody and Robin *barf* . . . but Escaping Polygamy???? Um I’ll take that with cheese thankyouverymuch).

While the (double) murder was the jumping off point of the book, when it comes to true crime stories and how desensitized I probably am with my obsession to all things cult and murdery, it wasn’t a real shock and awe sort of grabber. Buuuuuuuuut, as I said above, I’m always down for a trip to Colorado City so at first I was hooked. However, then came the entire history of the Mormon faith from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young to very little on Warren Jeffs and the downfall of his FLDS sect since this was released 20 years ago.

Nearly everyone else found this fascinating, though, so take my “meh” with several grains of salt. Or read Into the Wild or Into Thin Air by this author because I found both of those fascinating.

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.

Under the Banner of Heaven was a comprehensive look at fundamental belief that really got me thinking. I grew up LDS, so a lot of what this book covered resonated with me. Krakauer goes into a lot of detail about the history of the Mormon faith, so it was interesting to see the differences in the way people react to that history. In my case, it led me to Atheism; how could something that started with so much lying and dissembling be true? In the case of the Laffertys, whose heinous crimes are the subject of this book, it drove them to fundamentalism. They saw the church's history as truth, and mainline Mormonism as a departure, therefore an abomination.

The current, mainstream LDS reaction to church history is usually to claim that most accurate tellings of the founding of the Mormon religion are 'anti-Mormon' literature. They actively discourage members from delving too deeply into any historical research. Recently, however, with the publishing of official essays on Church history, they have attempted to address these issues in a world where information is increasingly right at our fingertips.

What really struck me about Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven was his complete lack of judgement. When writing about a double murder, child abuse, spousal abuse, and religious fundamentalism, it's easy to become emotional and angry in your writing style. Krakauer, however, remains an impartial writer, presenting the facts as they appear, whether it be from the mouth of the victims or the perpetrators. Even Mormon history he offers as a matter of fact, rather than lending any emotional indignation to the founding of the LDS church. The early Mormons do not come across as blameless in some of the atrocities they perpetrated in the founding of their church, but then neither do the early Americans, who committed equally horrendous crimes against the Mormons. I found it quite refreshing. These topics can be quite emotionally charged.

What really struck me, was how Krakauer just understood what was relevant, and conveyed it in a way that can appeal to every reader. He understands what it is to be driven by faith and does not judge it. He also understands the pain and emotional trauma that comes with leaving one's faith. But where this book really shines is in its study of the rationality of faith. To outsiders, the Lafferty murders seem to be the product of madness. Two men truly believe, without regret, that they were instructed by God to kill a woman and her baby. When it comes to prosecuting, however, it raises all kinds of question about madness vs. belief. Just because faith turns violent, does that make it a product of insanity? And if you apply insanity to it does it then, by extension, mean that all religious faith is a product of insanity? When is faith mad, and when is it rational? Neither I nor this book professes to have those answers.

n  “How can a society actively promote religious faith on one hand and condemn a man for zealously adhering to his faith on the other?”n

I can't recommend this book highly enough. It was deep, truthful, thoughtful and for me at least, highly personal.

I will leave you with the parting words of a fundamentalist apostate. Like so many of us who leave our faiths, we go through a period of questioning, confusion, and indeed, unhappiness while we find ourselves in a world that essentially has a far different reality to the one in which we grew up. “But some things are more important than being happy. Like being free to think for yourself.” To all of you struggling with your faiths out there, I promise, the unhappiness of uncertainty will pass. The ability to think for yourself is well worth the uncertainty you will face.

This is a very interesting look at Mormon extremists, a very worthwhile read by an outstanding journalist.

Ja pierdole ale pojebana akcja xD

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.

I learned a lot by reading this book. Plus, I love everything Krakauer writes.