This is the final half of Elaine Frei‚Äôs two part review and reflection of Krakauer’sUnder the Banner of Heaven.

In Part I of this review, I explored the story of Ron and Dan Lafferty and how they came to murder Brenda and Erica Lafferty, the wife and daughter of their younger brother, Allen.  While that story is the backbone and jumping-off point of Jon Krakauer’s book, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (Random House, 2003), there are a number of other issues related to Mormonism, past and present, which Krakauer examines.

An aspect of Krakauer‚Äôs book which fascinates me, aside from the text but relating to some of the issues he covers, is the fact that the mainstream Mormon church had a great many problems with what he wrote, so much so that it denounced his book publicly. I suspect that a huge part of what the Salt Lake church took issue with was Krakauer‚Äôs persistence in calling the folks who still believe in and practice things like polygamy and blood atonement “fundamentalist Mormons.” The mainstream church insists that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon and that people like Ron and Dan Lafferty and the members of polygamist sects are not Mormon (a label the church doesn‚Äôt much like anymore, anyway) in any way, shape or form.¬† And, it is true that the official church excommunicates anyone who publicly practices and advocates polygamy. I understand, however, from those who have reason to know that this might not necessarily be true of those who practice polygamy privately, but because I only have hearsay to go on I can‚Äôt say that I know this for sure. I do know that most of the prosecutions of polygamists in Utah have been on other grounds, such as child abuse, statutory rape, or welfare fraud, and not for the actual practice of plural marriage.¬† At any rate, these issues seem to be things the orthodox Mormon church seems a bit sensitive, and ambivalent, about.

There is, interestingly, one interpretation of current mainstream Mormon doctrine which holds that only the practice of polygamy in this world was halted by the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890, but that orthodox doctrine still accepts it as an essential practice in the afterlife. This interpretation is based on the fact that Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants (one of the Mormon collections of scripture), which justifies the marriage of a man to more than one woman by citing Old Testament examples such as David, Solomon, and Moses (see verse 38), is still a part of the canon.  Be that as it may, excommunications for polygamy do occur.  Among those excommunicated for non-orthodox practices such as polygamy were both Ron and Dan Lafferty.

A second part of the problem the mainstream church has with Krakauer’s book is that in it he discusses some very controversial aspects of the history of the church and the related actions of some of its early leaders. For example, Krakauer asserts early on that the promotional materials handed out by mainstream Mormon missionaries neglect to mention that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, was married to at least thirty-three women and that he may have married at least one girl as young as fourteen years of age.  That literature also, Krakauer says does not mention that Smith apparently denounced plural marriage to his followers even while he practiced it himself for a period of time before making the announcement that he had received a revelation endorsing the practice. Krakauer also claims that Brigham Young, who gained leadership of the early church after Smith was killed in jail, and who led the church to Utah, occasionally hired local Native Americans in Utah in his struggle against the Gentiles (to a Mormon, anyone who is not a Mormon is a Gentile). This was at a time when the United States government and the Mormon church in Utah Territory were on less than friendly terms. The role of these Native Americans was to harass Gentile wagon trains crossing Utah territory, presumably so that they would not be inclined to settle in the area.

This sort of activity culminated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre of September 11, 1857, in which approximately 120 members of what was known as the Fancher Party of emigrants ‚Äì men, women, and children ‚Äì were killed. Their remains were still scattered across the killing field almost two years later, when a representative of the US Army arrived to investigate the incident.¬† Despite reports from some who claimed that most of the “Indians” who were said to have carried out the massacre were actually Mormons disguised as Native Americans, historians, Krakauer says, are divided on the issue of what Brigham Young‚Äôs intentions were with regard to the Fancher Party. The facts seem to be that Young‚Äôs first tactic was to blame the Native Americans, but that later he put the whole blame for the massacre on John D. Lee, Young‚Äôs own adopted son and a devout Mormon. Young was instrumental in having Lee tried (a second time), convicted, and executed for the murders. Was Young pursuing justice, as he claimed, or making sure his own complicity in the crime remained unknown?¬† Again, historians are apparently divided as to the truth of the matter. What is clear is that the mainstream Mormon church, as an institution, is not interested in having anyone even speculate in public about the matter.

The mainstream church‚Äôs position on these matters, as I understand it, is that these “facts of history” are actually lies manufactured and disseminated by enemies of the church, meant to damage if not destroy the institution and its leaders, past and present. There are church authorities who have been known to advocate the idea that it is more important that histories of the church be “faith promoting” than that they hew strictly to the information discovered by historical scholarship. In an article in the Summer 1981 issue of the journal Brigham Young University Studies, Boyd K. Packer, one of the General Authorities of the church, wrote that “Some things that are true are not very useful.” Specifically speaking of the history of the church, he said, “The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.” Going one step further, he addresses the issue of historical information that is already in print but does not support the church‚Äôs official history: Such information should not be “disseminated”, to use Packer‚Äôs word. It isn’t just for prospective converts that the mainstream church wants to sanitize history, either. I have heard reports that a recent church lesson manual focusing on the life of Brigham Young represents him as having been monogamous even though there is plentiful historical evidence that he practiced polygamy. Again, I haven’t seen this manual myself, but the reports are widespread enough that I tend to believe them.

Little wonder, then, that the mainstream Mormon church was upset with Krakauer for writing Under the Banner of Heaven.  He makes a good case that the history as set forth in his book is the result of solid historical research, and not just an attack on the mainstream Mormon church. It would have helped to strengthen his case even further if Krakauer had more thoroughly documented his research through footnotes. That was one of the few weaknesses I found with the book.  He does, however, include chapter notes and an extensive bibliography to aid anyone who wishes to validate the contentions he makes in the book. Even by discussing these issues, however, Krakauer made himself a target of the mainstream church.  He issued an online defense when the church attacked his book even before it was published.

The mainstream Mormon church does not help its case by the practice of limiting access to its official archives to researchers they deem friendly to the church. Nor does it improve its position through its treatment of Mormon scholars who do not toe the official doctrinal line in their publications. In a section of “Author‚Äôs Remarks” at the end of his book, Krakauer writes about two Mormon historians, Fawn Brodie and D. Michael Quinn, who were ultimately excommunicated from the church at least in part because they did not write history as the church wishes it to be represented. A third writer, Juanita Brooks, who wrote about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, is mentioned but it is unclear whether she was excommunicated or left the church of her own volition. This sort of treatment of scholars who write the truth as they see it based on the evidence the find, and not necessarily as the church sees it, continues up to the present day.¬† Grant Palmer, a devout Mormon and longtime employee of the church‚Äôs educational system, was disfellowshipped in December 2004 for the things he wrote in his book, An Insider‚Äôs View of Mormon Origins (Signature Books, 2002).¬† The mainstream Mormon church is clearly not fond of the concept of academic freedom.

In a way, Krakauer had it easier as a non-Mormon writing about the Mormon church’s early history and its later dissenters and schismatics.  All the institution could do to him was to denounce his book, which probably only called more attention to it and likely gained him more readers than he would otherwise have had. At any rate, the postscript added to the revised paperback edition of Under the Banner of Heaven, in which he addresses the church’s criticisms and concerns over his book, seems to indicate that the church was much more bothered by his book than he was by their criticisms.

All of this is a lesson for anyone interested in looking at and writing about beliefs and belief systems, especially religious beliefs but, more and more, political beliefs as well. Individuals and institutions, sometimes especially institutions, can be very protective of their deeply held beliefs. It is important to realize that some folks are going to be highly sensitive about anything you might say concerning their beliefs. What the nonbeliever considers completely non-controversial might be perceived by the believer as highly inflammatory. One of the many reasons I am so interested in looking at beliefs and belief systems is that I want to see if there is any way to ratchet down the sensitivity so that dialogue about the things we each believe can take place without so much defensiveness and stress.