A Story of Violent Faith, by Jon Krakauer

SUNSTONE same breath, Krakauer adds that this BOOK REVIEW “daunting exercise” is useful “for what might be learned about the nature of faith” (xxiii). Here he falls short of the mark, never pur- suing the interesting questions about the na- A STORY OF VIOLENT ture of faith that arise along the way. DEFENSIVENESS INTO HOT WATER RAKAUER might have kept to his UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN: prior title formula—catchy three- ASTORY OF VIOLENT FAITH K word prepositional phrases begin- by Jon Krakauer ning with “Into”—and named this book Into Hot Water.2 As would be expected of the latest Doubleday, 2003 effort from any best-selling author, Under the 372 pages, $26.00 Banner of Heaven was reviewed widely, with mixed results. But the harshest blows were delivered by a most unusual literary critic, the Reviewed by Greg Matis Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a news release issued several weeks before the book’s publication, the Church took dead aim at both the book and Krakauer, with two sep- arate “responses” from Mike Otterson, the Even before Jon Krakauer’s book, Church’s Director of Media Relations, and Under the Banner of Heaven, was Richard Turley, managing director of the Family and Church History Department. A released, Church leaders took the offensive, third response followed later from Robert denouncing the book as historically inaccurate Millet, who holds BYU’s Richard L. Evans Chair in Religious Understanding.3 and anti-religion. Are the criticisms justified? Otterson’s short piece presents his personal (very negative) reaction to the book; Turley’s and Millet’s responses focus on more T IS A pity if Under the Banner of Heaven: in Utah County as a springboard for exam- substantive historical and doctrinal issues. A Story of Violent Faith is your introduc- ining the nature of religious fanaticism—in Collectively, these writers accuse Krakauer of I tion to author Jon Krakauer. Not because this case, Mormon fanaticism. Although he bias, unfair generalizations, gross exaggera- his latest book isn’t worthwhile, but because makes it clear that he’s talking about religion tions, and bad history. Otterson calls it means you haven’t had the pleasure of in general, Mormonism is his case study. As Krakauer a “storyteller who cuts corners to reading his other outstanding books, most part of a detailed examination of Ron and make the story sound good.” Millet labels the notably Into the Wild and Into Thin Air.1 Into Dan Lafferty’s murder of their sister-in-law book “not only a slap in the face of modern the Wild is the intriguing story of Chris Brenda Lafferty and her fifteen-month-old Latter-day Saints, but also a misrepresenta- McCandless, a young college graduate who daughter, Erica, Krakauer takes a critical look tion of religion in general.” And Turley warns donated his $25,000 in savings to charity, at unflattering aspects of Mormon history, that, “[a]though the book may appeal to torched his car, and then hitchhiked around particularly violence and polygamy. He also gullible persons who rise to such bait like the West before making a fatal attempt to live looks beyond the Lafferty brothers to other trout to a fly hook, serious readers who want off the land in the Alaskan wilderness. Into extremists and offshoots, including members to understand Latter-day Saints and their his- Thin Air is Krakauer’s gripping personal ac- of various Mormon Fundamentalist polyga- tory need not waste their time on it.” count of the 1996 tragedy on Mount Everest mous communities and Brian David Predictably, the early free publicity had a that claimed the lives of five of his climbing Mitchell, the man charged with kidnapping decidedly different effect than intended: the companions. Krakauer is a superb writer, Elizabeth Smart. book ended up on the national bestseller lists with a gift for telling compelling stories that In the prologue, Krakauer states that the and was a particularly hot commodity in tend to stay with you long after you finish book’s purpose is “to cast some light on Utah last summer. I was among the many one of his books. [Dan] Lafferty and his ilk” (xxiii). Krakauer who immediately bought a copy—largely on His latest is no exception. As the title sug- deftly achieves that goal. Under the Banner of the strength of Krakauer’s earlier work. To be gests, in Under the Banner of Heaven Krakauer Heaven opens the shades on a very dark cast sure, Under the Banner of Heaven has its flaws, makes an ambitious leap from the wilderness of characters, effectively telling a series of including various factual inaccuracies, many to religion, using the 1984 Lafferty murders chilling stories that need to be told. In the of which easily could have been corrected by any knowledgeable Latter-day Saint had Krakauer bothered to ask one to review the GREG MATIS lives with his wife, Kellie, and their three children, Emily, Grace, and manuscript.4 Nevertheless, I find the Sam, in Draper, Utah. Church’s criticism unduly harsh and overly defensive. Much of it just doesn’t stick. JULY 2004 PAGE 45 SUNSTONE WHO’S GENERALIZING? radicalized or outdated versions of Mormon read the disturbing accounts of the bad apple doctrine and the teachings of Joseph Smith.8 fanatics and unfairly conclude that they are CCORDING to all three official re- The persuasiveness of these official cri- representative of the whole bunch. Such sponders, one of the book’s most tiques is further weakened by their dogged fears assume the worst about readers and A damning faults is that Krakauer ex- determination to dispute virtually everything aren’t likely to materialize when the average trapolates the behavior of zealots and ex- Krakauer says, no matter how harmless or in- reader stacks these stories up against her extremists—in Otterson’s words, “tar[ring] consequential. Krakauer opens a chapter perience with her “friendly Mormon every Mormon with the same brush.”5 with a humorously good-natured account, neighbor.” This book isn’t about all According to Otterson, a reader “could be from an outsider’s perspective, of attending Mormons, or even all Mormon forgiven for concluding that every Latter-day the Hill Cumorah Pageant. He describes it as Fundamentalists. Saint, including your friendly Mormon having “all the energy of a Phish concert, but neighbor, has a tendency to violence,” which without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos THE WRONG HISTORIANS places Krakauer “in the same camp as those (Brother Richard’s comb-over notwith- who believe every German is a Nazi, every standing) or clouds of marijuana smoke” NOTHER, related charge of the offi- Japanese a fanatic, and every Arab a ter- cial detractors is leveled by Otterson: rorist.” Otterson doesn’t provide any evi- “This book is not history,” he chides, A 14 dence to support this inflammatory and “and Krakauer is no historian.” But unfair accusation. Nor is there any. In the face of Krakauer doesn’t claim to be a historian, nor Millet, whose treatment of the book is to have written a history book, nor even to generally more balanced than the other two, have conducted any original historical re- does offer an example of these alleged gener- such attacks by search. Like any journalist, he is presenting alizations by citing the following passage the findings and opinions of others, who he from the book: readily lists in end notes and who do include To comprehend Brian David the official Church respected historians such as D. Michael Mitchell—or to comprehend Dan Quinn, Fawn Brodie, Juanita Brooks, Will Lafferty, or Tom Green, or the critics, one can only Bagley and Todd Compton. Krakauer doesn’t polygamous inhabitants of offer a single historical assertion that hasn’t Bountiful and Colorado City—one already been made elsewhere. More to the must first understand the faith imagine Krakauer point is Otterson’s subsequent observation these people have in common, a that Krakauer has been “heavily influenced” faith that gives shape and purpose by the wrong historians, i.e., those who are to every facet of their lives. And any scratching his head “unsympathetic to the Church.” such understanding must begin Unfortunately, all this only underscores with the aforementioned Joseph in bewilderment. Krakauer’s typically pithy, if also unoriginal, Smith, Jr., the founder of the observation that the Church “happens to be Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- exceedingly prickly about its short, uncom- day Saints.” (53) Why the excessive monly rich history” (5). It leaves Turley, for Then Millet analogizes: example, in the unenviable position of This is like asking someone: defensiveness? having to insist, in an official response whose “Would you like to understand very existence argues the opposite, that the Catholicism today? Then study Church isn’t protective of its history.10 carefully the atrocities of the Consider the Church’s opposition, reiter- Crusades and the horrors of the (65). Turley quotes this passage and then ated by Millet, to the term “Mormon Inquisition.” Or “Would you like to seizes on a sentence early in the same chapter Fundamentalists.”11 The point is well taken gain a better insight into the minds as proof that Krakauer “stretches the truth in that none who openly espouse a and feelings of German people writing about modern Church events”: Fundamentalist agenda remain members of today? Then read Mein Kampf and Without citing a source, he the LDS Church. No one could blame the become a serious student of Adolf [Krakauer] exaggeratingly asserts Church for wanting to emphasize the distinc- Hitler.”6 that “sooner or later most Latter- tion, which Krakauer acknowledges (4–5).

Load more