Who is reading "No Man Knows..." - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 08-28-2006, 04:37 PM

The same people who buy these books (according to Amazon):

Quote:

Customers who bought this item also bought

* The Mormon Conspiracy by Charles L. Wood
* The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks
* By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson
* An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant H. Palmer
* Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer

I haven't read Brooks book, but I will someday.

Ironic that Krakauer would be lumped together with Brodie in this case. Ironic and fitting.

fusnik11 · 08-28-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Ironic that Krakauer would be lumped together with Brodie in this case. Ironic and fitting.

Ironic perhaps to the believer. When I ordered 'No Man' I chuckled when I saw the Krakauer book. The Krakauer book is such a bad example of scholarship that it doesn't seem fitting to recommend it when one purchases a well researched work.

Goatnapper'96 · 08-28-2006, 05:25 PM

I really enjoyed it. As interested in Sister Brooks as I was the events surrounging the massacre. Culture and socialization are powerful forces. I am not sure of even being aware of the disaster such forces have created can prevent future disasters.

I read a good portion of Krakauer's work. It sucked hind tiddy.

I doubt I will read Fawn's work.

I just started BH Roberts' "Rise and Fall of Nauvoo." I busted out laughing at his introduction when he states the purpose of his book is to bolster the faith of the Saints. Normal adage about studying history is to ensure we do not repeat it, LDS history seems to flop that around and approach its history with the intent to repeat it.

I have no issues with academics scoffing at LDS academia. They get to define the rules of their game from their own ivory towers. If a needlenecked pussy whose biggest occupational hazzard is a paper cut determines that mormon academics don't cut the mustard because the purpose of BH Roberts' books are the pattern religion wide, it bothers me so little.

I think the pursuit of truth is noble, I feel likewise about Elder Roberts' stated purpose.

Boobs are in. That is a noble truth, trust me.

Jeff Lebowski · 08-28-2006, 05:55 PM

Apparently, I am in a minority of folks inside the church that enjoyed "Under the Banner of Heaven". I have always been a fan of Krakauer's writing and have read all of his books. Of course, my favorite is still "Into Thin Air".

I am not saying that this is a great academic work or a great history book. However, I found it to be better than I was led to believe based on some of the reviews I had read from LDS readers. Yes, the distorted descriptions of LDS culture made me chuckle at times and he did not portray a flattering picture of the church (or religion in general), but I think his facts were basically correct. It was more a matter of how it was portrayed. But if you tell a sordid tale such as this, everything in the story will suffer some by association. Nevertheless, it was a fascinating story written by a gifted author.

RockyBalboa · 08-28-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Apparently, I am in a minority of folks inside the church that enjoyed "Under the Banner of Heaven". I have always been a fan of Krakauer's writing and have read all of his books. Of course, my favorite is still "Into Thin Air".

I am not saying that this is a great academic work or a great history book. However, I found it to be better than I was led to believe based on some of the reviews I had read from LDS readers. Yes, the distorted descriptions of LDS culture made me chuckle at times and he did not portray a flattering picture of the church (or religion in general), but I think his facts were basically correct. It was more a matter of how it was portrayed. But if you tell a sordid tale such as this, everything in the story will suffer some by association. Nevertheless, it was a fascinating story written by a gifted author.

I read Into Thin Air about 5-6 years ago and really liked it.

However, I've no desire to read his other books.

non sequitur · 08-28-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Apparently, I am in a minority of folks inside the church that enjoyed "Under the Banner of Heaven". I have always been a fan of Krakauer's writing and have read all of his books. Of course, my favorite is still "Into Thin Air".

I am not saying that this is a great academic work or a great history book. However, I found it to be better than I was led to believe based on some of the reviews I had read from LDS readers. Yes, the distorted descriptions of LDS culture made me chuckle at times and he did not portray a flattering picture of the church (or religion in general), but I think his facts were basically correct. It was more a matter of how it was portrayed. But if you tell a sordid tale such as this, everything in the story will suffer some by association. Nevertheless, it was a fascinating story written by a gifted author.

I also enjoyed the book. Krakauer is not an academicien, and his book was not intended as a work of scholarship. He's a storyteller, and his book tells a compelling story about a couple of crazy brothers and the part religion played in their insanity. He takes some swipes at the mormon church in the process, but the book takes a swipe at religion in general. When I look at the state of the world and see the part that religion plays in the many problems of the world, it's difficult for me to completely dismiss Krakauer's primary assertion that religious zealotry naturally leads to violence.

MikeWaters · 08-28-2006, 06:22 PM

In science we don't take a case report and then make generalized assumptions about the world and call it truth.

The Lafferty's were crazy. They grew up in Mormon culture. That doesn't mean that Mormonism produced the Lafferty's, yet that is his conclusion.

I have talked to someone that knew the Lafferty family (grew up with them), and says that the Father was very, very strange. Very weird ideas. And prone to violent outbursts.

Funny how Krakauer never mentions this. Because Krakauer had an agenda. And crazy, violent dad produces crazy, violent kids did not fit his thesis that religion produced them.

So much for the truth. And he got Mormonism so wrong as to be ludicrous.

But, I guess, like Brodie, he gets credit for writing readable prose.

I have an apostate friend that is very connected with the apostate intelligentsia, and he says the general consensus is that it is a terrible book.

But definitely readable. If not honest.

Jeff Lebowski · 08-28-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

In science we don't take a case report and then make generalized assumptions about the world and call it truth.

The Lafferty's were crazy. They grew up in Mormon culture. That doesn't mean that Mormonism produced the Lafferty's, yet that is his conclusion.

I think you have over-simplified his thesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have talked to someone that knew the Lafferty family (grew up with them), and says that the Father was very, very strange. Very weird ideas. And prone to violent outbursts.

Funny how Krakauer never mentions this. Because Krakauer had an agenda. And crazy, violent dad produces crazy, violent kids did not fit his thesis that religion produced them.

Did we read the same book? I recall reading quite a bit about how crazy the old man was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So much for the truth. And he got Mormonism so wrong as to be ludicrous.

It all comes down to a question of degree, I suppose. As I was reading the book, I recall thinking "This is it? What was all the fuss about?" relative to bitter reviews (such as yours) from LDS readers.

non sequitur · 08-28-2006, 06:40 PM

I approached Krakauer's book the same way I approached "In Cold Blood" when I first read it. The Lafferty brothers story was one that hadn't really been told outside the newspapers, and it was a compelling story. I don't think most people who read the book look at it as some sort of expose on the mormon church. Most people are smart enough to realize that the Lafferty brothers are not representative of mormons in general.

MikeWaters · 08-28-2006, 06:56 PM

The only reason I read the book was because a colleague at work was reading it and asking about it.

So I started reading it. And then it turned out than an acquaintance of mine grew up with the Lafferty's so I had an additional source of information.

The craziness of the father, IMO, was downplayed by Krakauer.

I give you two examples:

1) him violently killing the family dog
2) peforming physicals on kids as the pseudo-doctor he was (for school physicals or something), grabs a kids glasses and throws them against the wall (breaking them), saying "you wouldn't need glasses if you ate beets!!" [?I can't remember the vegetable, but it wasn't carrots!]

We are talking about a certifiably terribly disturbed individual. You don't get that picture from the book. You don't get the sense that these boys were in many ways nothing more than the exaggerated replica of their father.

Hence my suspicion of Krakauer's dishonesty. Fusnik11 has backed me up on this before (Fusnik11 claims to know Krakauer or his family or something).

If he had just stuck with the story at hand, and not tried to make wild unsupported unconvincing extrapolations (and not been dishonest in his research IMO), he would have been much better off.

And it is not terribly surprising, that he has been accused of dishonesty and purposeful distortions in "Into Thin Air."

If you want to learn about Mormon culture, Krakauer will not give you anything close to an accurate picture. Yet he claims to. And that is why I have a problem with his book.

08-28-2006, 05:25 PM	#3
Goatnapper'96 Recruiting Coordinator/Bosom Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,412	I read the MMM by Juanita Brooks. I really enjoyed it. As interested in Sister Brooks as I was the events surrounging the massacre. Culture and socialization are powerful forces. I am not sure of even being aware of the disaster such forces have created can prevent future disasters. I read a good portion of Krakauer's work. It sucked hind tiddy. I doubt I will read Fawn's work. I just started BH Roberts' "Rise and Fall of Nauvoo." I busted out laughing at his introduction when he states the purpose of his book is to bolster the faith of the Saints. Normal adage about studying history is to ensure we do not repeat it, LDS history seems to flop that around and approach its history with the intent to repeat it. I have no issues with academics scoffing at LDS academia. They get to define the rules of their game from their own ivory towers. If a needlenecked pussy whose biggest occupational hazzard is a paper cut determines that mormon academics don't cut the mustard because the purpose of BH Roberts' books are the pattern religion wide, it bothers me so little. I think the pursuit of truth is noble, I feel likewise about Elder Roberts' stated purpose. Boobs are in. That is a noble truth, trust me. __________________ She had a psychiatrist who said because I didn't trust the water system, the school system, the government, I was paranoid," he said. "I had a psychiatrist who said her psychiatrist was stupid."

08-28-2006, 05:55 PM	#4
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	Apparently, I am in a minority of folks inside the church that enjoyed "Under the Banner of Heaven". I have always been a fan of Krakauer's writing and have read all of his books. Of course, my favorite is still "Into Thin Air". I am not saying that this is a great academic work or a great history book. However, I found it to be better than I was led to believe based on some of the reviews I had read from LDS readers. Yes, the distorted descriptions of LDS culture made me chuckle at times and he did not portray a flattering picture of the church (or religion in general), but I think his facts were basically correct. It was more a matter of how it was portrayed. But if you tell a sordid tale such as this, everything in the story will suffer some by association. Nevertheless, it was a fascinating story written by a gifted author. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

08-28-2006, 06:40 PM	#9
non sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,964	I approached Krakauer's book the same way I approached "In Cold Blood" when I first read it. The Lafferty brothers story was one that hadn't really been told outside the newspapers, and it was a compelling story. I don't think most people who read the book look at it as some sort of expose on the mormon church. Most people are smart enough to realize that the Lafferty brothers are not representative of mormons in general. __________________ ...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan

08-28-2006, 06:22 PM	#7
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	In science we don't take a case report and then make generalized assumptions about the world and call it truth. The Lafferty's were crazy. They grew up in Mormon culture. That doesn't mean that Mormonism produced the Lafferty's, yet that is his conclusion. I have talked to someone that knew the Lafferty family (grew up with them), and says that the Father was very, very strange. Very weird ideas. And prone to violent outbursts. Funny how Krakauer never mentions this. Because Krakauer had an agenda. And crazy, violent dad produces crazy, violent kids did not fit his thesis that religion produced them. So much for the truth. And he got Mormonism so wrong as to be ludicrous. But, I guess, like Brodie, he gets credit for writing readable prose. I have an apostate friend that is very connected with the apostate intelligentsia, and he says the general consensus is that it is a terrible book. But definitely readable. If not honest.

08-28-2006, 06:56 PM	#10
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	The only reason I read the book was because a colleague at work was reading it and asking about it. So I started reading it. And then it turned out than an acquaintance of mine grew up with the Lafferty's so I had an additional source of information. The craziness of the father, IMO, was downplayed by Krakauer. I give you two examples: 1) him violently killing the family dog 2) peforming physicals on kids as the pseudo-doctor he was (for school physicals or something), grabs a kids glasses and throws them against the wall (breaking them), saying "you wouldn't need glasses if you ate beets!!" [?I can't remember the vegetable, but it wasn't carrots!] We are talking about a certifiably terribly disturbed individual. You don't get that picture from the book. You don't get the sense that these boys were in many ways nothing more than the exaggerated replica of their father. Hence my suspicion of Krakauer's dishonesty. Fusnik11 has backed me up on this before (Fusnik11 claims to know Krakauer or his family or something). If he had just stuck with the story at hand, and not tried to make wild unsupported unconvincing extrapolations (and not been dishonest in his research IMO), he would have been much better off. And it is not terribly surprising, that he has been accused of dishonesty and purposeful distortions in "Into Thin Air." If you want to learn about Mormon culture, Krakauer will not give you anything close to an accurate picture. Yet he claims to. And that is why I have a problem with his book.