(no subject)

[kcobweb]

Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer. This was a very fast read - based on the fact that I read the whole thing yesterday, and that was while dealing with a Crabby Screaming Baby (tm) all afternoon. (I still couldn't put it down.) It is about Mormonism, Mormon fundamentalists (that is, polygamists), and the violence inherent in that culture. I know a decent amount (I thought) about Mormons, especially as someone who has lived a good chunk of my life in the Intermountain West surrounded by them, but this book kind of freaked me out. He specifically focuses on a murder outisde of Provo in 1984 - two men who murdered their sister-in-law and her baby in cold blood because God told them to do so - and then discusses their story, interspersed with chapters on the historical roots of Mormonism. (Plural marriage basically came out of the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't keep it in his pants, and well, he was a prophet, so God told him that not keeping it in his pants was a good thing, no, in fact, sacred! Really. I had the Church Lady's voice echoing in my head: "Well, isn't that conveeeeenient!") I didn't know how blood-soaked and vengeful the whole Mormon history is. Just amazing. Krakauer is the guy who wrote Into Thin Air, about a string of deaths while climbing Mt. Everest; basically, this book reads like an adventure story, only it happens to be about religion and religious history.

The last few chapters really grapple with some big questions - though without actually answering them (unfortunately). I'll transcribe a passage that struck me, because I think a few of you will be interested:

...if Ron Lafferty were deemed mentally ill because he obeyed the voice of 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 society actively promote religious faith on one hand and condemn a man for zealously adhering to his faith on the other?
This, after all, is a country led by a born-again Christian, President George W. Bush, who believes he is an instrument of God and characterizes international relations as a biblical clash between forces of good and evil. The highest law officer in the land, Attorney General John Ashcroft, is a dyed-in-the-wool follower of a fundamentalist Christian sect - the Pentecostal Assemblies of God - who begins each day at the Justice Department with a devotional prayer meeting for his staff, periodically has himself anointed his sacred oil, and subscribes to a vividly apocalyptic worldview that has much in common with key millenarian beliefs held by the Lafferty brothers and the residents of Colorado City. The president, the attorney general, and other national leaders frequently implore the American people to have faith in the power of prayer, and to trust in God's will. Which is precisely what they were doing, say both Dan and Ron Lafferty, when so much blood was spilled in American Fork on July 24, 1984.

Creepy creepy fascinating stuff. Needless to say, the LDS heirarchy does not approve of this book; I found it riveting.

Comments

[saltcod.livejournal.com]

Intriguing. I might have to pick this up.

I'd just been reading some more light-hearted, self-inflicted Mormon humorish things online after following some LJ link somewhere (D was in Salt Lake City this morning, and had been spouting about Utah, too)... and all I could think of?
'Hey, isn't that American Fark, gol dang it?'
Which may or may not be the appropriate response to what apparently is a fairly gruesome incident, but I'm not claiming to be appropriate or anything.

Hope the little EB is felling less crabby. *hugs*

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

In a pinch, Ashcroft has been known to anoint himself with Crisco. The guy ought to be put away.

I too found Under the Banner to be a pretty good read. Much better than Into the Wild (didn't read Into Thin Air). As you point out, he does an excellent job of demonstrating that "God's will" is open to debate. It was scary how Dan said that he thought it must be wrong to kill his sister-in-law and niece, but when he prayed about it, he heard God telling him to do it. I mean, maybe he hated Brenda (was that her name?) and disguised it to himself as God's will, but why kill her toddler too? I guess maybe organized religion has probably done more good than bad for society over the millenia, but maybe not.

I read Orson Scott Card's Saints a long time ago, which is how I first learned about the thinking behind celestial marriage. Suffice it to say that it didn't really wash with me. Sorta like how the Shakers got started by a woman who lost 14 children in childhood and then suddenly got this vision of a religion that believes in celibacy and the complete separation of men and women.

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

It was scary how Dan said that he thought it must be wrong to kill his sister-in-law and niece, but when he prayed about it, he heard God telling him to do it.

Or at the end, when his brother Ron says God wants him (Ron) to kill Dan, and first Dan lets him (after praying about it) - but when that attempt doesn't succeed, and Ron wants to try again, Dan does *not* get the go-ahead from God on round two... and so he won't let Ron near him. I found that creepy.

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

Not to mention just a wee bit inconsistent. Unless Dan interpreted it as a Abraham/Isaac kind of thing, like God saying, "Whoa, dude! I just wanted to see if you were willing to kill your brother--you weren't supposed to actually go through with the attempt!"

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

...if Ron Lafferty were deemed mentally ill because he obeyed the voice of God, isn't everyone who believes in God and seeks guidance through prayer mentally ill as well?

He was deemed mentally ill because he believed that the Voice of God was telling him to kill people, and he ignored the rules that come from our laws and from our religious traditions that tell us "killing off innocent family members is wrong". If Krakauer can't tell the difference between that and praying for guidance in a person's daily life, he's got serious problems.

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?

The society as a whole has laid claim to that right. If a large enough majority comes to believe that God is speaking to them and that slaughtering women and children is OK, then we'll change the laws and amend the Constitution. Don't hold your breath waiting for it, though.

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

Because all rights have limits, and when one right starts interfering with someone else's rights, you've probably just gone past the limits. I can swing my arm wherever I like, but I am not allowed to hit you in the nose with it. You may say what you like, but you aren't allowed to incite a riot against me. It's a basic part of our legal system -- we balance the competing rights of individuals against each other, and we come up with what is hopefully a workable compromise.

The specific details of people's faiths can be quirky, or downright weird sometimes, be it ritual cannibalism in the Catholic tradition, or the odd traditions that have arisen around the Hajj in Islam. We run into problems when people let their faith be their only guide in living, much like a stool that attempts to balance on one leg is terribly precarious.

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

He was deemed mentally ill because he believed that the Voice of God was telling him to kill people, and he ignored the rules that come from our laws and from our religious traditions that tell us "killing off innocent family members is wrong".

I think you and I know that - Krakauer is asking why *they* didn't. Within the context of their religious upbringing, they were taught to pray to God for answers on how to live their lives. Mormons are encouraged to talk directly to God - if God tells you something, then aren't you supposed to follow it? That's exactly what they did.

In fact, within that bloodthirsty Mormon culture that he describes, God has often decreed (or allowed) violence and vengeance in the past - so how is this any different? Because these guys weren't Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, and therefore in positions of power?

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

>>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?

>The society as a whole has laid claim to that right. If a large
>enough majority comes to believe that God is speaking to them and
>that slaughtering women and children is OK, then we'll change the
>laws and amend the Constitution. Don't hold your breath waiting
>for it, though.

As kcobweb notes in response to another of your comments, I don't think Krakauer would disagree with you. I think he's trying to draw a parallel to the current administration, which often uses personal religious beliefs as a justification for its actions.

I suppose if you really believe that your god is talking to you, you have an obligation to follow his orders, regardless of whether you think the prevailing order would agree. Were the Laffertys' actions crazy and illegal by normal standards? Yes. By their own standards, which placed obedience to their god above all else? No.