Under the Banner of Heaven
This is by far the most difficult book for me to objectively review. I picked it up while visiting a relative's house (who hasn't been to an LDS Church service in a while, but is respectful towards the Church) after reading the inside cover jacket. I had never heard of it before and was under the impression that it was an investigative report on how some members of the FLDS church committed a heinous murder. I had been wanting to know more about the FLDS faith, and it seemed like a good storyline, so I dove right in. Boy was I in for a ride.
I went through a broad spectrum of emotions while reading Under the Banner of Heaven. At first (like the first 20 pages), Jon Krakauer does a great job of being completely journalistic and reports only the facts of the perpetrators' backgrounds and the history of the FLDS church. Then he ever so carefully and slyly introduces his personal agenda into the writing.
His comments were upsetting to me at first- not because he was shaking my faith (I have spent a LOT of time reading anti-Mormon books and literature and researching the facts...his discussion and "facts" about the "evil dark side" of the LDS faith were actually some of the least compelling and persuasive I've read...but more on that later). It's more upsetting and saddening to me that so many people have read this book and trusted this man's writing and now have a skewed and tragically incorrect knowledge of the faith that I know, love, and cherish.
Krakauer bills himself as a journalist, but in reality he is a story-teller. His previous works have similarly been stories based on true experiences (He also received much scrutiny for his other best-selling book Into Thin Air for inaccuracies in his depiction of that story). Nonetheless, he is a great storyteller, and it was engrossing and a fast read.
I can't decide if I believe that Krakauer endeavors to be as deceptive as he is. His writing style is such that he uses broad hyperboles frequently, and goes so far in his emphatic descriptions that he changes the meaning of his original statement. For example, he bluntly states as absolute fact that Mormons (members of the LDS Church) have to work hard and earn the love of Heavenly Father. While true that we do believe that faith and works are both required to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, we believe that the undying love of our Heavenly Father is unconditional. Many times he makes simple slips like this. He also repeatedly harps on the fact that violence and plural marriage are two of the greatest, most taught, and sacred tenants of the LDS faith. I'm really not sure where he got that idea...it was strange even to me that he would keep saying that. Again I'm not sure if he is trying intentionally to be deceptive with regards to these simple doctrines.
He does obviously have some adverse feelings towards the LDS Church. Though he advertises the book as focusing on the FLDS church, he spends the great majority of the work analyzing the mainstream LDS faith (which does intertwine to a certain extent with the FLDS), and speaking of how the current LDS members have this dark history which trains them to be violent and secretive.
He makes his case mainly by using two sources, whom he claims are the most reputable and well respected historians in American Mormon history. Both of these sources were apparently not friendly towards the LDS Church. The material Krakauer uses isn't anything groundbreaking or new- he essentially perpetuates the same fables, misconceptions, exaggerations, and hearsay which has been circulating (and depending on who you ask disproven) for generations now. As always, it is up to the reader to decide whose evidence they are going to believe, as the many versions of "Mormon History" all claim to be factually based and easy to believe from first examination. Naturally, if the reader only reads this story, they are getting an awfully one-sided account. According to some historically based reviews I read of this book, he didn't even consistently use his sources correctly. It has been said that he used the sources accounts as they fit his agenda, even if the accounts from his sources differed. How unenlightening.
After I finished the book, I heard that there was quite the hoopla within the religious community when it came out. I searched online and found these official statements from the LDS church concerning Under the Banner of Heaven. I had no idea the book was such a big deal!
From an intellectual point of view, I was disappointed from the first blatantly incorrect statement read. He lost his journalistic integrity with me, and now I cannot even believe anything he said about the FLDS faith and their followers, thereby frustrating the reason I picked up the book in the first place. Krakauer would be better served to keep his label as a storyteller, and stop trying to build an image as an investigative reporter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have always been skeptical of "investigative reporters" who go to ANYONE other than the source of that which they are supposedly investigating to get their information. This is the case in almost every instance of a less-than-flattering, or less-than-accurate review of the LDS Church. I have seen it in Time magazine, Newsweek, on television, and now in this book, Under The Banner of Heaven.
My point is, if one is REALLY interested in knowing what Latter-day Saints are all about, how about asking an ACTIVE Latter-day Saint? ANY Latter-day Saint? Or, even better, how about asking a Church leader?
If I were doing a review on the Catholic Church I would go to the Vatican. I wouldn't seek out an excommunicated nun or priest. I believe that I, as well as any average person, am intelligent enough to hear the doctrines presented by any particular faith, and make up my own mind as to the veracity and strengths of which, without being skewed by someone with an axe to grind.
Beyond that, to define ALL Latter-day Saints by the actions of a few who have committed heinous crimes is, to put it mildly, painting with a rather broad brush. Isn't that something akin to comparing ALL Catholics with the Mafia? Or all Germans with Nazis? I have never heard an LDS leader state that every member of the Church was perfect. According to LDS doctrine, when we obey or disobey spiritual laws, we are subject to the attendant spiritual blessings or punishments, as they apply. It is an Article of the Latter-day Saint Faith to obey the laws of the land in which they reside. The only place I can imagine the author of this book finding any number of "violent" Latter-day Saints would be in a prison.
Although I did not read this book, I read all three reviews Dan referenced, in addition to his review, and I've concluded that this writer is not really an "investigative reporter" at all, but rather a clever writer of fiction, probably with a pre-conceived negative view about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I've debated posting on this topic but feel I must advance a couple of thoughts.
I've also read this book. First, the author covered too much material. He really was not that great of a storyteller because he was trying to tell several different stories. I understand why, because in a way they were all related, but it was convoluted and confusing.
Second, his main thesis was not anti-Mormon. As he states early in the book, he is interested in how, once someone is convinced that they are doing God's will, there is no reasoning with them. I didn't feel he was indicting Mormons any more than any other religious group on this point. He happened to use them as examples. After all, everyone coming from the Judeo-Christian tradition supposedly worships the same God who has, admittedly, required some pretty violent - and seemingly irrational - things from his people. A father killing his son. A priest being chopped up in he temple. An entire village's inhabitants slaughtered. Etc.
Thirdly, he raises an interesting proposition that religion can unite people for evil as easily as for good, and perhaps more easily so. Certainly one can find examples. However, looking at the bloody history of the 21st century, one also finds millions of people slaughtered in the name of admittedly godless regimes. At a certain point, it would seem that philosophies - religious, political, etc. - have an ability to unite people.
This seems to lead to the question of what is the difference between religion and a philosophy. We normally refer to Eastern philosophies (Buddhism, Shintoism) and Western religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.). Somewhere along the continuum must be political philosophies, which in some cases appear to inspire religious-type zeal in their adherents.
Or perhaps religions inspire political-type zeal?
As to the Church's statements referenced by Dan, I can only say in this brief space permitted that one can find some clever manipulations of the truth in those statements as well. President Hinckley's statements on plural marriages are the stuff of Grade-A public relations courses. (Last I checked, men are still being married to multiple wives, for time and eternity, in the temples, just not at the same time.)
Finally, as for asking members of a group in question rather than asking outside "experts", I think there is an obvious need to do both. If I'm interested in Scientology, I'm not just going to chat with Tom Cruise. If I'm interested in conservative Islam, I'm not just chatting with Osama Bin Ladin. And more to the point, if I'm interested in Hillary Clinton as a candidate, I'm not going to limit myself to her campaign literature. People inside any organization they feel strongly about have a definite bias - perhaps unconscious - in explaining themselves. Outsiders will mention things those on the inside may conveniently not mention.
For example, the missionaries in Japan never - never - brought up polygamy when teaching about the church. If someone investigating joining the church wanted to know about that, they would have had to consult an outside source. Probably not a bad idea.
I normally just let commentary run its course and don't get involved, but I feel as though this post deserves a quick, concise, and systematic response. I mainly write only because the subject matter is so precious to me, and I feel that there are certain issues that need clarification. I encourage free speech and am always eager to talk about spiritual and religious matters. I will address each point in order:
First, honestly I am not well read enough to know what constitutes a “good story”, so I guess my comments on his storytelling ability aren't well founded. I do remember now that it was at times hard to follow as he jumped from one era to another.
Second, I realize that he states that his main thesis is not anti-Mormon. In my effort to be objective I even state my inability to decide whether he meant to be as one-sided as he was. Yes, his statement that “once someone is convinced that they are doing God's will, there is no reasoning with them” does not indite Mormons any more than any other faith, following, cult, or whatever a group may be called. However, there were 300 other pages in the book which DID indite Mormons more than any other group. I don't think I need to lay out the whole logical syllogism showing that for this reason, the book is inherently anti-Mormon.
The third point, if I understand it correctly, is the same dilemma which has plagued philosophers for ages. J.S. Mill and Immanuel Kant both wrote extensively on the subject of motivation, both trying to explain human behavior from an amoral, or rather faithless point of view. What is the difference between religion and philosophy? The difference between the holy missionary and Taliban-like religious zealot? Well that depends who you ask. A purely intellectual examination of intangible things will never lead to whole truth. Religion is inherently faith-based. No amount of logical debate will ever prove the truthfulness of faith.
As to the Church's statements, I don't thing there was anything “clever” or “manipulative” about President Hinckley's comments. He simply answered the question at hand. When people talk about polygamy, I think 99.9% of them are referring to the practice of having more than one wife concurrently alive, not that to which the previous author was alluding. If someone were to ask me where I'm from, I would say “from New Jersey” and don't think I would be misleading by not saying “originally from a great pre-mortal life where I lived with God and everyone else before I came to Earth...”. This all comes down to faith and your vision of truth. Regardless of how objective any of claim to be, we all look at life through a tainted glass and see things according to our beliefs.
As for asking outside experts vs. asking members of a group, I'm glad that we agree on this point. Like I said in my post, Krakauer's view was terribly one-sided. He should have counseled with those inside and favorable to the faith just as much as those who oppose it. The Church encourages people to search out their faith. We are instructed to not follow blindly. I believe that includes both parties.
I served my mission in Tampa. If people wanted to know about polygamy, I would talk about it with them. I suppose the missionaries in Japan would also- people probably just didn't ask. Polygamy isn't brought up in the standard missionary discussions because there are too many more important topics to discuss in the short time that the missionaries have with a person. I think it's more important and vital to eternal salvation to talk about the nature of God and Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation and how we can return to live wit h God than it is to discuss polygamy.
It is I.
Joe (moi), the Father-in-Law, gave Dan the Banner of Heaven. Oops. I hadn't read it. Oh, by the way, I have played basketball for my Ward's team so I am not completely out of touch. Just 99%. My parents both recommend the book (my dad is an attorney). They both loved the intimate references that only a Mormon raised in Utah would relate to. And, they were both interested in the freedom of religion vs criminal aspects of the law as layed out in the adaptation of a true story. Sounds pretty innocent to me. Maybe I had better read it myself.
Post a Comment