NY Times blog piece on FLDS and LDS

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Adam

Under the Banner got some facts wrong, but the premise was right on target.

Mainstream Mormons believe in a God that can and will sometimes order his followers to flout the law of the land. Mainstream Mormons believe that whether it is from the mouth of the president of the church or from God's mouth, it is the same. The mainstream Mormon church has a history of actually flouting the law and defying the government. Mainstream Mormons believe that Abraham was literally ordered by God to kill Issac and mainstream Mormons actually carried out the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The book doesn't pretend that mainstream Mormons are today bloodthirsty polygamists, but it makes the valid point that the history and doctrine of the mainstream church will always tend to spin off wackos at a greater rate than, say, Lutherans or Baptists. The book then highlights the Lafferteys as example A.

That he got some facts wrong doesn't negate the essential truth of what he was saying.

The book was a disjointed piece of crap and my guess is he would admit as such. I think his point was to demonstrate religious fundamentalism through the mormon perspective. I don't know all this mainstream mormon crap you condescendingly spew, but I think the Lafferty's were crazy. The book demonstrated that crazy people do crazy things and that sometimes crazy people think that God talks to them and tells them to do crazy things. Not exactly a trend organic or isolated to the LDS religion. To me the reoccurring theme is crazy. Now if he would like to develop that into arguing that the bizarreness of the LDS experience/history attracts a disproportionate share of crazy people and demonstrated it that would be another thing but I saw or recall little analysis of that. My guess is that it wasn't included because it wouldn't stand any scrutiny. But he went from Brother Deloy to sister wives in Canada breaking down with jealousy because their hubbies were rockin another sister wives' world to the MMM to the dream mine to the Lafferty's waxing their sister in law and niece. Whatever point you drew from it about Mormons having a higher predisposition to crazyness, especially compared to Baptists who have no crazy sects or do strange things, is entirely your own conclusion and not Krakauer's.

The book was poor on facts and the scholarship tying them together sucked hind titty. It is a pretty big job to demonstrate that a certain religious sect is somehow more crazy than others. If that was his aim, he failed. What he told was a story about crazy people.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Waters, Egan has two Pulitzers in history. Does he qualify as a historian?

Egan and Krakauer are buddy buddy. They've known each other for years and years - and they still both live in Seattle. I don't doubt his creds, but I'm not sure Egan is an objective reviewer of Krakauer's work.

Correction: I guess Krakauer now lives in Boulder.

[Ma'ake]

A principal point Krakauer made - which I find extraordinarily valid - is the troublesome & sometimes combustible results that frequently arise from belief and dependence upon "personal revelation".

Just about everywhere else if a guy says he's been talking with & getting instruction from God others will look at him suspiciously, maybe even recommend professional help. In Utah County the same can lead many others to be swayed into investing in transparent pyramid schemes, or a crazed vision of a gold mine (which church leadership had to repeatedly disclaim and put down). How many families have been bankrupted by wayward personal revelations about financial decisions? More than just a few.

The LDS religion emphasizes personal revelation to an extent not seen in a lot of others. The number of wackaloons who've taken this notion and run into the sunset is more than just a handful. The most recent prototypical example: Brian David Mitchell.

I'll never forget the quote from the guy in Mitchell's ward who described the point when he felt Mitchell had gone too far in his theology:

"He was a nice guy, and all, but when he started this talk about being the 'Father of God', I just couldn't sustain him after that".

You couldn't *sustain* him anymore? Really? No shit? Anywhere else claiming to be the Father of God would lead others to say "can we please get this poor man some Thorazine, some professional psychiatric assistance?" Too often the same situation in Utah would seemingly lead to a friendly difference of opinion, like "well, Delbert, I respect the guidance the Lord has given you, but I see things just a bit differently."

Newsflash - MITCHELL WAS CRAZY, not just confused about the particulars of divine revelation.

Krakauer has never pretended to be an unbiased historian. He had an objective in writing the book, and was successful in conveying a compelling, skeptic's view of how religion, faith, charisma & marginal mental health can combine to produce bad outcomes.

I don't find this point to be outrageously objectionable. Many can't see this larger general point, can't get past the fact Krakauer focused on Mormonism, yet if he wrote of Islam it would be a monumental work vital to rallying support for our national defense, and the good people of Deerborn, Michigan would be crying foul.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Fact Check:

Tim Egan has a Pulitzer prize for Journalism (he was one of a team of writers doing a series on race in America), and a National Book Award for his 2006 book on the Dust Bowl.

While laudable, such awards do not suggest he knows anything about Mormonism.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

A principal point Krakauer made - which I find extraordinarily valid - is the troublesome & sometimes combustible results that frequently arise from belief and dependence upon "personal revelation".

Just about everywhere else if a guy says he's been talking with & getting instruction from God others will look at him suspiciously, maybe even recommend professional help. In Utah County the same can lead many others to be swayed into investing in transparent pyramid schemes, or a crazed vision of a gold mine (which church leadership had to repeatedly disclaim and put down). How many families have been bankrupted by wayward personal revelations about financial decisions? More than just a few.

The LDS religion emphasizes personal revelation to an extent not seen in a lot of others. The number of wackaloons who've taken this notion and run into the sunset is more than just a handful. The most recent prototypical example: Brian David Mitchell.

I'll never forget the quote from the guy in Mitchell's ward who described the point when he felt Mitchell had gone too far in his theology:

"He was a nice guy, and all, but when he started this talk about being the 'Father of God', I just couldn't sustain him after that".

You couldn't *sustain* him anymore? Really? No shit? Anywhere else claiming to be the Father of God would lead others to say "can we please get this poor man some Thorazine, some professional psychiatric assistance?" Too often the same situation in Utah would seemingly lead to a friendly difference of opinion, like "well, Delbert, I respect the guidance the Lord has given you, but I see things just a bit differently."

Newsflash - MITCHELL WAS CRAZY, not just confused about the particulars of divine revelation.

Krakauer has never pretended to be an unbiased historian. He had an objective in writing the book, and was successful in conveying a compelling, skeptic's view of how religion, faith, charisma & marginal mental health can combine to produce bad outcomes.

I don't find this point to be outrageously objectionable. Many can't see this larger general point, can't get past the fact Krakauer focused on Mormonism, yet if he wrote of Islam it would be a monumental work vital to rallying support for our national defense, and the good people of Deerborn, Michigan would be crying foul.

sorry this is wrong. You obviously haven't met many evangelicals in my parts. The people who claim that every single thing they do is God's will, "God directs my every step."

Sorry, Mormons, on average, aren't even in the same ballpark.

Too many years in Utah has warped your perspective. But that's been your choice.

There's a lot of people that want to beat up on Mormons (look at the list of the people here that do this) as somehow more wacky than other people, but really they are just indulging in their own biases. It's pseudo-social science.

And yes, I'm calling bullshit on you.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

Egan and Krakauer are buddy buddy. They've known each other for years and years - and they still both live in Seattle. I don't doubt his creds, but I'm not sure Egan is an objective reviewer of Krakauer's work.

Correction: I guess Krakauer now lives in Boulder.

if they are buds, more proof of his carelessness/laziness vs. intellectual dishonesty.

Man, has anyone gotten more mileage from shoddy work than Krakauer. I spoke to an influential Mormon apostate who says that he and all his intellectual apostate friends say Krakauer's book is shit. They were very disappointed in it.

But of course we have the intellectual lazy apostates/enemies here and elsewhere that consider K.'s book sacrosanct.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

sorry this is wrong. You obviously haven't met many evangelicals in my parts. The people who claim that every single thing they do is God's will, "God directs my every step."

Sorry, Mormons, on average, aren't even in the same ballpark.

Too many years in Utah has warped your perspective. But that's been your choice.

There's a lot of people that want to beat up on Mormons (look at the list of the people here that do this) as somehow more wacky than other people, but really they are just indulging in their own biases. It's pseudo-social science.

And yes, I'm calling bullshit on you.

Its been interesting watching you morph in to Rocky.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

sorry this is wrong. You obviously haven't met many evangelicals in my parts. The people who claim that every single thing they do is God's will, "God directs my every step."

Sorry, Mormons, on average, aren't even in the same ballpark.

Too many years in Utah has warped your perspective. But that's been your choice.

There's a lot of people that want to beat up on Mormons (look at the list of the people here that do this) as somehow more wacky than other people, but really they are just indulging in their own biases. It's pseudo-social science.

And yes, I'm calling bullshit on you.

Damn straight. GBU I like you, but your viewpoint is warped by your lifetime in Utah. My Evangelical SiL is constantly talking about how Jesus guides her every step and how she is prompted to do this or that. Interesting that it is highly likely that most of those applying Texas law on the FLDS are of this same persuasion.

My wife got into it a little bit over corporal punishment with a guy that did some work on our house (he was the husband of the woman that was our real estate agent). Great people and very Evangelical. He kept quoting the Bible to support his point. My wife wanted to quote the living prophet, but knew it would get her nowhere.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

sorry this is wrong. You obviously haven't met many evangelicals in my parts. The people who claim that every single thing they do is God's will, "God directs my every step."

Sorry, Mormons, on average, aren't even in the same ballpark.

Too many years in Utah has warped your perspective. But that's been your choice.

There's a lot of people that want to beat up on Mormons (look at the list of the people here that do this) as somehow more wacky than other people, but really they are just indulging in their own biases. It's pseudo-social science.

And yes, I'm calling bullshit on you.

LOL (Mike, great site, I'm glad you did this. Good back & forth, like boxing with your brother.)

Where in my post did I assert Mormons are worse than (or even equivalent to) Evangelicals? I think many, many people regard bible-thumping evangelicals as real kooks, maybe even more so than Mormons, which makes McCain unable to select Huckabee as his running mate. Romney is also problematic, but for slightly different reasons. (Sorry about the inadvertent cross post - politics on TV this morning. LOL)

If Krakauer wrote a book about Evangelicals (bible-thumpers, snake handlers, et al), it would be far more damning than Banner, IMO, as Evangelicals - by and large - are far more "certain" and intolerant than Mormons are - a bad combination - and it makes them really pretty scary, in the minds of most people.

Nonetheless, there are some significant differences between Mormons & EVs on personal revelation, mostly that Mormons have a built-in hierarchical orientation (eg, the Prophet is the Lord's public mouthpiece, the Priesthood hierarchy structure) whereas EVs all believe they're getting the direct scoop. This difference makes Mormons more likely to look for leaders, look to people who are more "select" than they are. The vast majority of LDS stay in the fold on religious matters, no doubt, but for those who are strong believers, but inclined to accept that SLC is in apostacy, look out... anything is possible.

I think Krakauer's primary audience for Banner was rational non-religious folks (of which there are many), and to a lesser extent, religous people who are wary of Mormons. It's relatively safe to pound on Mormons because there are relatively few of them and there are pre-conceived ideas to built upon.

If Krakauer *really* wanted to take the gloves off, he would go after the EVs.

Maybe he'll do that. After Banner he hired a pilot to so he could take aerial photos of the budding compound in El Dorado, but is there enough there to write a second book? I tend to think not (but who am I?)

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

if they are buds, more proof of his carelessness/laziness vs. intellectual dishonesty.

Man, has anyone gotten more mileage from shoddy work than Krakauer. I spoke to an influential Mormon apostate who says that he and all his intellectual apostate friends say Krakauer's book is shit. They were very disappointed in it.

But of course we have the intellectual lazy apostates/enemies here and elsewhere that consider K.'s book sacrosanct.

Wait a minute - who considers Banner to be sacrosanct?

"Not I ", sayeth this apostate. If there is anything I've learned from my time on the planet it's that human beings - and the religions or schools of thought they construct (or at least provide structure & ideology around) - are far from perfect, or even accurate.

For that matter, what is "truth"?