The book to buy on Mormonism this year is about to come out.

[Exmo-Robertson]

New book examines America's homegrown religious zealots

AP Photos SLC801-802

By C.G. WALLACE

Associated Press Writer

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Best-selling author John Krakauer has built a reputation on gripping portrayals of those who push their physical limits. But now the writer has set his sights on spiritual extremes, and his upcoming book is already creating headaches for the image-conscious Mormon church.

''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith,'' which reaches bookstores July 15, examines the dangers of religious extremism through those who claim to follow the original teachings of the Mormon church, a chief tenet of which is the taking of multiple wives.

These ''fundamentalists'' still practice polygamy even though The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially abandoned the practice in 1890 and works to this day to distance itself from the subject.

Krakauer is best known for ''Into Thin Air,'' his firsthand account of a doomed expedition on Mount Everest. That book, along with his earlier ''Into the Wild,'' were national best sellers.

In ''Under the Banner of Heaven,'' Krakauer turns his attention to the 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty and her 15-month-old daughter, Erica, and draws a line from the deaths to the perception the church has labored to leave behind.

Dan and Ron Lafferty, Brenda's brothers-in-law, slit their victims' throats with a 10-inch boning knife and later claimed God had ordered the slayings. The men were tried separately; Dan Lafferty is serving a life sentence, and Ron Lafferty - who claimed to have the revelation to kill - is on death row.

With Dan Lafferty as a main source, Krakauer writes that the brothers decided to practice polygamy, and killed Brenda and her child because the mother had opposed them.

Weaving details of the deaths throughout the book, ''Under the Banner of Heaven'' tries to add a larger context to the killings and their alleged connection to Mormon fundamentalism. It examines the secretive communities of polygamists, those who have left the practice, and the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case. The girl's alleged abductor, Brian David Mitchell, claims God told him to take Elizabeth as a ''sister wife.''

The book spends many pages on church founder Joseph Smith and his revelation to practice polygamy, and portrays Smith - who wrote the Book of Mormon - as a grifter and philanderer. Krakauer also explores the darker chapters of faith's brief, and sometimes violent, history, including the religion's role in the massacre of California-bound pioneers in 1857.

More recently, Mitchell's alleged role in the Smart abduction and polygamy claims have put the church on the defensive, and religious experts have questioned whether the church hierarchy can ever shake the faith's past embarrassments.

The church has been forceful in rebuking Krakauer's book. Church spokesman Michael Otterson called the writer's attempt to link religious zealots with Mormon history and doctrine ''a full-frontal assault on the veracity of the modern church.''

''His basic thesis appears to be that people who are religious are irrational, and that irrational people do strange things,'' Otterson said. ''He does a huge disservice to his readers by promulgating old stereotypes. ... One could be forgiven for concluding that every Latter-day Saint, including your friendly Mormon neighbor, has a tendency to violence.''

The Mormon church has nothing to do with the ''fundamentalists'' and excommunicates those who advocate plural marriage.

Still, zealots such as Lafferty and Mitchell needle the church's image, and polygamy remains inextricably linked to the church's founding.

In 1843, Smith disclosed his revelation that polygamy, restored by prophecy from the patriarchal Old Testament, was an essential ingredient of eternal exaltation.

Smith's teachings on polygamy remain in the church's four volumes of scripture, which has been used as a justification for Mitchell and thousands of so-called fundamentalist Mormons to defy mainstream Mormonism and establish sects where men take multiple wives, some as young as 12.

Krakauer argues that the faith's inconsistencies and silences about its relatively short past - the church was organized in 1830 - is causing recurring embarrassment for the church over polygamy. He notes that even after the church banned the practice as a condition of Utah's statehood, some Mormon leaders still took multiple wives after 1890.

Dana: Another example of "Lying for the Lord."

A planned cross-country tour by Krakauer promises fresh attention to the church's past. Dan Wotherspoon, editor of the Mormon magazine Sunstone, said the book will spotlight the faith much like the lead-up to the 2002 Winter Olympics when national profiles of Salt Lake City put the church under a microscope.

''This could very well be the next Olympics in the sense of them raising awareness of Mormonism's past and some of its difficulties. It could make for a long and difficult summer,'' Wotherspoon said.

Publishing house Doubleday has printed 350,000 copies so far, and early buzz has been favorable to the book. The Wall Street Journal and USA Today have recommended it in summer reading lists, and GQ magazine's current issue features excerpts.

Two weeks before the book goes on sale, ''Under the Banner of Heaven'' ranked 164th among Amazon.com's 1.5 million books, a ''pretty hefty rank'' for a book not yet available, said Amazon spokesman Bill Curry.

The church-owned Deseret Book chain has already said it won't stock the book.

''We believe, after reviewing the book, that it will alienate and offend a majority of our customers,'' said spokeswoman Gail Brown. She said the stores' buyers thought the book was ''rather one-sided and one-dimensional.''

Dana: Interpretation-It won't make the LDS Church look good.

Krakauer's language in the book is pointed: ''Mormon authorities treat the fundamentalists as they would a crazy uncle - they try to keep the 'polygs' hidden in the attic, safely out of sight, but the fundamentalists always seem to be sneaking out to appear in public at inopportune moments to create unsavory scenes, embarrassing the entire LDS clan.''

Krakauer refused, through his publisher, to be interviewed for this story. But he writes in the author's remarks in the book that he originally sought to chronicle the religion's attempts to reconcile its past. Instead, he says, he found a history of religion-fueled violence.

Church historian Richard Turley said Krakauer has taken a sensational approach to the faith's history.

''Although the book may appeal to gullible persons who rise to such bait like trout to a fly hook, serious readers who want to understand Latter-day Saints and their history need not waste their time on it,'' Turley wrote in a review of the book. ''Ostensibly focused on murders committed by brothers who had been excommunicated from the church, Krakauer's book is actually a condemnation of religion generally.''

Dana: Not so, he simply tells the events as it happened, without whitewashing the events or doing spin control. The brothers were excommunicated from the church and the book clearly states this, but the crime they did, they did because of their belief and faith in the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Mormons who already know about this book are afraid of it. The fact that Deseret Book Stores will not sell it will make it a must have behind Zion's Curtain


Because of my involvement with Mormonism, Doubleday sent me a copy to review. I value it for the background you'll get on the Mormon fundamentalists movement in America today. It is not for the weak of stomach and will break your heart in some spots and make you mad as hell in others. But it is a book I HIGHLY recommend. My copy was incomplete, I will be buying the finished product.

[Bill the Cat]

:eek:

[Jin-Roh]

I second that.
:eek:

[Xmansmommy]

:ponder:

[T.J. Maxx]

There is always a new book on Mormonism yeah. And even monthly it seems like. So what is the big deal about this one? Just sounds like one of the thousands of books attacking LDS faith, and it is crazy to expect Deseret Books to sell it just because a SL Tribune columnist liked it. The SLT is notoriously anti-Mormon. The guy that wrote the latest book on the Meadow Massacre thingy that accused Brigham Young of planning the whole thing (something no historian who is not an LDS critic would agree with) was a SLT columnist too. Bagley I think his name was.

Do we expect Pro-Mormon books to appear on Christian store book shelves just because they get good reviews?

[Exmo-Robertson]

Today @ 04:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138266#post138266)
T.J. Maxx:

Do we expect Pro-Mormon books to appear on Christian store book shelves just because they get good reviews?

I've heard that complained about more then once, read "The Gainsayers" by Darrick E.

[dizzle]

And to me there is no doubt that there is incredible whitewashing over Smith's philandering and the motives behind this "revelation" of polygamy and the way he handled it with Emma.

[T.J. Maxx]

I asked: "Do we expect Pro-Mormon books to appear on Christian store book shelves just because they get good reviews?'

Dana responds: "I've heard that complained about more then(sic) once"

:shrug:

???

Can you not discern the difference between a simple question and a "complaint." If you don't have an answer to the question then just say so. Don't be mischaracterizing my comments like you do with the Mormons.

My first encounter with you and I already see Kevin's point. You have to make everyone else out to be complainers and "whiners." But this doesn't come from anything they say, but only from what you force into their mouths.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Today @ 12:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139067#post139067)
T.J. Maxx:

Can you not discern the difference between a simple question and a "complaint." If you don't have an answer to the question then just say so. Don't be mischaracterizing my comments like you do with the Mormons.

My first encounter with you and I already see Kevin's point. You have to make everyone else out to be complainers and "whiners." But this doesn't come from anything they say, but only from what you force into their mouths.

Well I'm sorry you're such a sensitive soul. My response to you your was intended to be a yes. Darrick E. in his book, "The Gainsayers" was upset because he couldn't find any Pro-LDS books in Christians bookstores. So yes, (let me spell it out plain and simple so you don't get mad again) I've seen Mormons who expect Christin bookstores to carry Pro-LDS books. But guess what, my statements are correct because they were "complaining" that they didn't so. Now T.J. baby I didn't say you were complaining and I didn't even mention "whiners" but you know they say birds of a feather and so forth. Anyone who would go to Kevins birthday party would have to have a little rub off on him.
Nothing but love for you baby.

[T.J. Maxx]

Dana: Well I'm sorry you're such a sensitive soul. My response to you your was intended to be a yes.

If yes, then why aren't you complaining that Pro-Mormon books are nowhere to be found in Christian bookstores? Did you already forget what the question was?

Dana: Darrick E. in his book, "The Gainsayers" was upset because he couldn't find any Pro-LDS books in Christians bookstores.

Darrick is naive I think. But you answered yes so you expect to find Pro-LDS books there right? Well, can you name one? Better yet, why don't Christian bookstores have the "Jesus the Christ" by James Talmadge, or "Biblical Mormonism" by Richard Hopkins? If Mormons were to argue your argument, they would simply say the Christian Church is suppressing facts about its faith that don't look favorable on it. Well duh! Any Church is going to sell books that are only pro-"their faith." There is nothing here unique to Mormonism as you would have us suppose. This conspiracy theory falls into the "God screwed Mary" category. Just more sensationalistic propaganda.

Dana: So yes, (let me spell it out plain and simple so you don't get mad again)

So now I have gone from "complaining" to being "mad" in one single post? Good grief, your purpose of this entire thread was to "complain" about the LDS church not selling an anti-Mormon book. How naive is that? The fact that you think it is a wonderful read should surprise no one. After all, "It is not for the weak of stomach and will break your heart in some spots and make you mad as hell in others," therefore it is no wonder why you "HIGHLY recommend it."

Dana: I've seen Mormons who expect Christin(sic) bookstores to carry Pro-LDS books. But guess what, my statements are correct because they were "complaining" that they didn't so.

This is not only hearsay, it is irrelevant.

Dana: Now T.J. baby I didn't say you were complaining

You referred to my question as a complaint. I had no idea you were going to drag in wacko Mormons like Evenson.

Dana: and I didn't even mention "whiners"

No, you mentioned that about a half dozen times in responses to Kevin. I happened to skim through your exchange, and couldn't get over the hyperbole.

Dana: but you know they say birds of a feather and so forth. Anyone who would go to Kevins(sic) birthday party would have to have a little rub off on him.

And anyone who would go to such lengths to defend the likes of Decker must also "have a little rub off on him." What is your point here? I don't agree with Kevin's religion, but I know the man personally. He has helped me a great deal as of late and he has never asked anything in return. And probably to your amazement, he has never tried converting me to Mormonism or has he even invited me to his church. You could learn a lot from him in how to treat people of divergent faiths. It was a joy watching Marc and Kevin discuss religious matters with the others the past few months. They came here by invitation, not for evangelistic purposes. They have contributed quite a bit to the forum with respect and courtesy, only to have their faith ambushed by a hit-man of an Evangelical. I am sad to see that the forum has chosen to trade them up for you. The level of discourse will suffer tremendously.

It seems to me that Kevin has described you perfectly. You want people to be like you. "Mad as hell" against Mormonism. Even sick to their stomach. You have one goal here, and that is to incite religious animosity and aggression against your former faith, not for any rational reason, but for your own vindictive purposes. What was once a great place to find Evangelical and Mormon discuss issues respectfully, has now become little more than a cess pool of bigotry and hate-mongering. Who is going to represent the LDS side now... the ex-Mormons?

In your long list of historical quotes, just look at the responses of disgust by the others. They are buying your mud without a care for critically examining of the material you cite for context. You're becoming your own cult leader especially if people consider you an authority on LDS history just because you throw up entire websites full of carefully selected quotes by anti-Mormon readers. You know, people get persecuted, buildings fall down and kill thousands because of religious vendettas that are thrown down like these.

Citing Kevin, you are the "epitome of what Evangelical scholars Mosser, Owen, Cowan and Richard Mouw fear in their own community. Careless attacks based on pure emotion instead of logical or rational reasoning. It only makes their job that much harder when fire monkeys like these spoil their efforts."

[Exmo-Robertson]

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Dana: Well I'm sorry you're such a sensitive soul. My response to you your was intended to be a yes.

If yes, then why aren't you complaining that Pro-Mormon books are nowhere to be found in Christian bookstores? Did you already forget what the question was?

T.J. honey read the question right, the yes was in response to your original question "Do we expect Pro-Mormon books to appear on Christian store book shelves just because they get good reviews?"

I quote Darrick as an example of one Mormon who has. I'm sure there have been many others.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Dana: Darrick E. in his book, "The Gainsayers" was upset because he couldn't find any Pro-LDS books in Christians bookstores.

Darrick is naive I think. But you answered yes so you expect to find Pro-LDS books there right? Well, can you name one? Better yet, why don't Christian bookstores have the "Jesus the Christ" by James Talmadge, or "Biblical Mormonism" by Richard Hopkins?

Having misunderstood the answer as explained above, I feel no need to respond to this question.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

If Mormons were to argue your argument, they would simply say the Christian Church is suppressing facts about its faith that don't look favorable on it. Well duh! Any Church is going to sell books that are only pro-"their faith." There is nothing here unique to Mormonism as you would have us suppose. This conspiracy theory falls into the "God screwed Mary" category. Just more sensationalistic propaganda.

I guess the fact that some Mormon leaders actually did teach that "God screwed Mary" doesn't matter to you but that's OK, I proven the point. Mormons often translate fact as "conspiracy theory."

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Dana: So yes, (let me spell it out plain and simple so you don't get mad again)

So now I have gone from "complaining" to being "mad" in one single post? Good grief, your purpose of this entire thread was to "complain" about the LDS church not selling an anti-Mormon book.

No, the newspaper article simply informs us that Deseret Books will not be selling the book. I said: "Interpretation-It won't make the LDS Church look good," giving the reason why. I never once made any complains because they wouldn't sell it. I expected them not to sell. As for being "mad," you've had a serious attitude problem towards me before I ever even knew who you were.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

How naive is that? The fact that you think it is a wonderful read should surprise no one. After all, "It is not for the weak of stomach and will break your heart in some spots and make you mad as hell in others," therefore it is no wonder why you "HIGHLY recommend it."

Guess what? I'm not the only one, GQ mag gave it four stars, Maxim gave it 5. It is getting rave reviews everywhere it is talked about by people (unlike you) who HAVE already read it and can make an intelligent comment about it. You're condemning it before you even knows what it says, so your thoughts on the subject is at this point pretty useless.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Dana: I've seen Mormons who expect Christin(sic) bookstores to carry Pro-LDS books. But guess what, my statements are correct because they were "complaining" that they didn't so.

This is not only hearsay, it is irrelevant.

No, it isn't hearsay, it published in the book I mentioned. IT'S ON PAPER BABY!!!

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Dana: Now T.J. baby I didn't say you were complaining

You referred to my question as a complaint. I had no idea you were going to drag in wacko Mormons like Evenson.

No disagreement, he is a wacko, but Deseret bookstores still sells his book as faith promoting, just like they still sell Paul H. Dunn books which have been proven to be nothing but full of lies. But hey, why not, money is money.
And no I didn't refer to your question as a complaint, that's why I said "I didn't say you were complaining."

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Dana: and I didn't even mention "whiners"

No, you mentioned that about a half dozen times in responses to Kevin. I happened to skim through your exchange, and couldn't get over the hyperbole.

Please reference the "half dozen" times. My responses to Kevin are responses to Kevin, what does that have to do with what I've said to you?

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Dana: but you know they say birds of a feather and so forth. Anyone who would go to Kevins(sic) birthday party would have to have a little rub off on him.

And anyone who would go to such lengths to defend the likes of Decker must also "have a little rub off on him."

Poor Ed, he has had nothing to do with any of my posts but he keeps getting dragged into it. I guess you and Kevin wants everybody to hate Ed as much as you two do. Mormons hate it because he has told more truth about the Mormon church then the Mormon church has. Mormonism does not want people to know the meat of their religion. Because when people do, they stay far away.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

What is your point here? I don't agree with Kevin's religion, but I know the man personally. He has helped me a great deal as of late and he has never asked anything in return. And probably to your amazement, he has never tried converting me to Mormonism or has he even(never?)(sic) invited me to his church. You could learn a lot from him in how to treat people of divergent faiths.

So if I called you a "homosexual" and claimed that you "lived with your mother" I would being setting a higher standard like Kevin does? What does you knowing "the man personally" have anything to do with facts or the teachings of the LDS church? The fact that "he has never tried converting me to Mormonism" has nothing to do concerning the book I mentioned. What example are YOU teaching people about how to "treat people of divergent faiths?" hmmmm......

Also, if you're not LDS, please tell us you meant when you said in your orginial post: "Do we expect Pro-Mormon books to appear on Christian store book shelves just because they get good reviews?" Who is "we?" I believe you to be LDS and if you are of course Kevin isn't going to try to convert you. hmmmm....



Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

It was a joy watching Marc and Kevin discuss religious matters with the others the past few months. They came here by invitation, not for evangelistic purposes. [/QUOTE}

Well guess what? Iwas invited also by Bill the Cat. He invited me here to join the debate. Does that mean I get to stay now?

[QUOTE]Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

They have contributed quite a bit to the forum with respect and courtesy, only to have their faith ambushed by a hit-man of an Evangelical. I am sad to see that the forum has chosen to trade them up for you. The level of discourse will suffer tremendously.

Kevin's rude behavior and arrogance was one of the reasons Bill invited me.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:


It seems to me that Kevin has described you perfectly. You want people to be like you. "Mad as hell" against Mormonism. Even sick to their stomach. You have one goal here, and that is to incite religious animosity and aggression against your former faith, not for any rational reason, but for your own vindictive purposes. What was once a great place to find Evangelical and Mormon discuss issues respectfully, has now become little more than a cess pool of bigotry and hate-mongering. Who is going to represent the LDS side now... the ex-Mormons?

Well you are welcomed to your opinion and I will not debate that. Opinions are not facts, and I couldn't care less what your opinions are. I don't live to make you happy. But I do bring to the discussion 33 yrs of real life Mormon experiences, something YOU can't offer and something even Kevin can't offer. I have more then studied this subject, I been there, done that, bought the T-shirt with the Masonic symbols on it, and burned it. Yet you, who claims to not even be a member (I doubt that), would have us believe that YOU have more knowledge on this topic than I do. I don't think so.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

In your long list of historical quotes, just look at the responses of disgust by the others. They are buying your mud without a care for critically examining of the material you cite for context.

Being Mormon sources, they would believe that the quotes intended to mean what they say. They came from books PUBLISHED by the LDS Church. Is the LDS Church now a publisher of anti-mormon books? "Critically examining of the material" is Mormonspeak for "reading it until you agree with us."

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

You're becoming your own cult leader especially if people consider you an authority on LDS history just because you throw up entire websites full of carefully selected quotes by anti-Mormon readers. You know, people get persecuted, buildings fall down and kill thousands because of religious vendettas that are thrown down like these.

Well that would be true if you could find where I have ever promoted violence towards members of the LDS faith, you making such a statement shows that you're the one who is handing out "sensationalistic propaganda." Cult leader? I've never started a church, nor do I intend too.

Today @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

Citing Kevin, you are the "epitome of what Evangelical scholars Mosser, Owen, Cowan and Richard Mouw fear in their own community. Careless attacks based on pure emotion instead of logical or rational reasoning. It only makes their job that much harder when fire monkeys like these spoil their efforts."

Oh, now that hurt! :rofl:

[Bill the Cat]

OK, I'll bite... what's a fire monkey???

[Bib Lit Major]

Today @ 01:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139178#post139178)
T.J. Maxx:

They came here by invitation, not for evangelistic purposes. They have contributed quite a bit to the forum with respect and courtesy, only to have their faith ambushed by a hit-man of an Evangelical. I am sad to see that the forum has chosen to trade them up for you. The level of discourse will suffer tremendously.

What was once a great place to find Evangelical and Mormon discuss issues respectfully, has now become little more than a cess pool of bigotry and hate-mongering. Who is going to represent the LDS side now... the ex-Mormons?

Who chose sides? Who left whom? Kevin and Marc left. They can both return whenever they'd like. Nothing is stopping them. I was kind of sad at the way things turned out. We haven't chosen Exmo over them. Please, either address the thread in the locker room: "Kevin vents about Exmo-Robertson" or have Kevin do so OR stop complaining about this forum siding on Exmo's side.

[T.J. Maxx]

Dana: T.J. honey read the question right, the yes was in response to your original question "Do we expect Pro-Mormon books to appear on Christian store book shelves just because they get good reviews?"

Nathan: I'm not your honey, your sweety pie, baby cakes and certainly not your "sugar daddy." I read the question perfectly well and you answered it exactly as I interpreted it. I have no idea why you highlight the "we" since "we" means non-Mormons which would include me and YOU. So with this answer you say you expect to find pro-Mormon books in Christian bookstores. So...start naming them.

Dana: I quote Darrick as an example of one Mormon who has. I'm sure there have been many others."

Nathan: You quote Darrick as a means to a straw man. You spend too much time responding to questions with questions. This is the typical maneuvering that only a politician could appreciate.

Dana: Having misunderstood the answer as explained above, I feel no need to respond to this question.

Nathan: No you probably misunderstood yourself.

Dana: I guess the fact that some Mormon leaders actually did teach that "God screwed Mary" doesn't matter to you but that's OK, I proven the point. Mormons often translate fact as "conspiracy theory."

Nathan: Bold assertions mean nothing in the long run. If indeed the Church believes God screwed Mary this would be of interest to discuss, but since you can only come up with a statement from the Seer that was refuted by the Church itself shortly after publication, your argument leaves much to be desired. All you can do is create a conspiracy theory that says the Church refuted it for missionary purposes, not because it really disagreed with it. Tell me how this doesn't "beg the question" if you cannot support this accusation? The quotes from Brigham Young are only significant if we interpret them through your eyes and limited understanding of Biology 101. I've seen this issue played out to its end with many LDS critics the past year or so, and the most respectful Evangelical scholars have learned to avoid this criticism like the plague because they really have no case. When Richard Mouw of Fuller seminary says,

"As an evangelical I must confess that I am ashamed of our record in relating to the Mormon community. To be sure, there are deep differences between our worldviews. But none of those disagreements give me or any other evangelical the license to propagate distorted accounts of what Mormons believe. By bearing false witness against our LDS neighbors, we evangelicals have often sinned not just against Mormons but against the God who calls us to be truth-tellers."

He is referring to people like you Dana. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Dana: No, the newspaper article simply informs us that Deseret Books will not be selling the book. I said: "Interpretation-It won't make the LDS Church look good," giving the reason why. I never once made any complains because they wouldn't sell it. I expected them not to sell.

Nathan: This is how ridiculous your attacks have become? To start entire threads based on something as trivial as this! What discussion is suppose to ensue from this? I hadn't posted the responses would be limited to three emoticons. Is this the sort of fodder that needs to be filling up the bandwidth on the forum?

Dana: As for being "mad," you've had a serious attitude problem towards me before I ever even knew who you were.

Nathan: Well I don't post things for the purpose of making people mad like you just did. Misery loves company. I admit bias because I am close to Kevin and his family and I did not appreciate your unchristian actions towards him and his family in Atlanta. But my friendship with Kevin hasn't rendered me incapable from discerning truth from fiction and intelligent analysis from sensationalistic propaganda.

Dana: Guess what? I'm not the only one, GQ mag gave it four stars, Maxim gave it 5.

Nathan: Well I guess that settles it. What better source for religious truth than GQ magazine and the quasi-porn Maxim!

:rofl:

Dana: No, it isn't hearsay, it published in the book I mentioned. IT'S ON PAPER BABY!!!

Nathan: Darrick's complaint is on paper but not the assertion that you've "seen Mormons who expect Christian bookstores to carry Pro-LDS books."

Dana: No disagreement, he is a wacko, but Deseret bookstores still sells his book as faith promoting,

Nathan: No it doesn't sell it as "faith promoting." When you walk in Deseret books there is no "faith promoting" section. Deseret books like any bookstore, sells some truly crap books because it is a business not a Church. Just because it is owned by the Church means nothing. They also sell Christian music from Jars of Clay to Amy Grant and books by famous Christian authors like C.S. Lewis. Is this stuff faith promoting too?

Dana: just like they still sell Paul H. Dunn books which have been proven to be nothing but full of lies.

Nathan: Who? Anyway, so what?

Dana: But hey, why not, money is money.

Nathan: Exactly Dana, this is a business like amazon for Pete's sake.

Dana: Poor Ed, he has had nothing to do with any of my posts but he keeps getting dragged into it.

Nathan: Ed is the reason you engaged Kevin a few years back, or so he said. You accused the Browns of lying about his excommunication but he loaned me a copy of their book and they nowhere accuse Ed of being excommunicated for adultery. They said he committed adultery which he doesn't deny but that is about it.

Dana: I guess you and Kevin wants everybody to hate Ed as much as you two do.

Nathan: No, the point is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. You've tried to discredit Kevin because he follows liars, murders and adulterers. Well where would you be today if you hadn't met Ed? You were defending Ed Decker when Ed would not. I read the exchange he had with Wade Englund and it was similar to your arguments. He responds to questions with questions, always jumping around the subject, refusing to answer direct questions. Like when he was asked when and where he was ever a Gospel Doctrine teacher. Instead of answering the question he says, "go do your own research, the Church has records." Accordingly, no records like these are kept in the church in the first place, so Ed was just blowing smoke again and refusing to deal with his own lies. No accountability as usual.

Dana: Mormons hate it because he has told more truth about the Mormon church then the Mormon church has.

Nathan: Actually, from my experience Mormons cite Decker and Martin more than they do Owen and Mosser and other critics who are more friendly. They do this because it is so easy to use them as "examples" for the Evangelical attitude towards them and it proves embarrassing for the Evangelical movement as a whole.

Dana: Mormonism does not want people to know the meat of their religion. Because when people do, they stay far away.

Nathan: But as our own Evangelicals have noted, Decker is a liar and a sensationalist. The Tanners have said as much and now even Dick Baer agrees. So it isn't enough to say the Mormons don't judge Decker properly because he tells truth about them since this is just more question begging. You have to explain why people on his side of the fence agree with them!! So far you've offered no defense at all, yet you expect Mormons to defend your attacks against dozens of dead Mormons from the past 150 years.

Dana: Kevin's rude behavior and arrogance was one of the reasons Bill invited me.

Nathan: Oh, now this is a revelation. Kevin will get a kick out of this. Bill was upset because Kevin had him up against the ropes on a number of issues, so no wonder he had to call in reinforcements. And from what I read Bill was just as rude as Kevin.

Dana: Opinions are not facts,

Nathan: Which is why your opinions are irrelevant just as hot air.

Dana: I don't live to make you happy. But I do bring to the discussion 33 yrs of real life Mormon experiences, something YOU can't offer and something even Kevin can't offer.

Nathan: I don't think you have anyone truly fooled about your alleged "expertise" in the field of Mormonism. Your website demonstrates this and you've made it clear the way you misrepresent LDS doctrine and LDS administrative issues, that if you were truly LDS to begin with you were way out in left field taking notes on only the negatives.

Dana: Being Mormon sources, they would believe that the quotes intended to mean what they say.

Nathan: They do mean what they say, but they don't mean what you think they say or what you want them to say. You cannot force "sex" into the sentence no matter how desperately you try. You cannot force "LDS membership" into Woodruffs paragraphs no matter how desperately you try. So I agree the text speaks for itself but you are trying to speak for it.

Dana: "Critically examining of the material" is Mormonspeak for "reading it until you agree with us."

Nathan: And "that is what they in their own Church publication" is anti-Mormonspeak for "choose a sentence that provides shock value to a 21st century audience, regardless of context."

Dana: Well that would be true if you could find where I have ever promoted violence towards members of the LDS faith, you making such a statement shows that you're the one who is handing out "sensationalistic propaganda."

Nathan: Not at all, and I think everyone here knows that hate is the mother of all violence. There is nothing remotely Christian about your website or your attitude towards the LDS. Are you denying that you spread hatred and try to get people to hate Mormonism like you do? Mr. "I Hate Mormonism Inc." Morphing LDS leaders in graphics to look like Hitler.

How would you like it if I did the same with that photo of your child? If placed a balloon above it saying, "Like Father like Son, nothing but crap coming out of the mouth." Wouldn't that be considered hateful?

Think before you act.

[dizzle]

Whoa!! I wish someone had brougth Dana's comments with Mary to my attention. Dana, do not use such base words in reference to Mary and LDS belief.

And for the record Nathan, I agree with you on the Hitler morph. It shocked me, and I think it is terribly inappropriate.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: T.J. honey read the question right, the yes was in response to your original question "Do we expect Pro-Mormon books to appear on Christian store book shelves just because they get good reviews?"

Nathan/Kevin Graham: I'm not your honey, your sweety pie, baby cakes and certainly not your "sugar daddy." I read the question perfectly well and you answered it exactly as I interpreted it. I have no idea why you highlight the "we" since "we" means non-Mormons which would include me and YOU. So with this answer you say you expect to find pro-Mormon books in Christian bookstores. So...start naming them.

No the "we" was a slip up on your part when you reprint Kevins e-mail response. "We" as in "we Mormons." I've never said I expected Deseret to sell the book. You are arguing a position I never made.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: I quote Darrick as an example of one Mormon who has. I'm sure there have been many others."

Nathan/Kevin Graham: You quote Darrick as a means to a straw man. You spend too much time responding to questions with questions. This is the typical maneuvering that only a politician could appreciate.

I do that trying to help you think for yourself, I see it's not working.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: I guess the fact that some Mormon leaders actually did teach that * edited by a moderator * doesn't matter to you but that's OK, I proven the point. Mormons often translate fact as "conspiracy theory."

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Bold assertions mean nothing in the long run. If indeed the Church believes * edited by a moderator * this would be of interest to discuss, but since you can only come up with a statement from the Seer that was refuted by the Church itself shortly after publication, your argument leaves much to be desired.

Yeh, Kevin kept making that claim when it was plain I backed up the statement from the Seer with quotes from THREE prophets of LDS Church and another apostle. But let's not confuse Kevin with the facts, he has a church to save.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

All you can do is create a conspiracy theory that says the Church refuted it for missionary purposes, not because it really disagreed with it. Tell me how this doesn't "beg the question" if you cannot support this accusation?

It supports itself, the LDS Church denies what its leaders have clearly taught and believed. I've given several examples how Mormonism will lie out of its teeth to hide its doctrine from the public. The problem is Kevin's or I'm sorry, yours to deal with.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

The quotes from Brigham Young are only significant if we interpret them through your eyes and limited understanding of Biology 101.

When I read that Brigham Young said: "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood -- was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." I don't see any reference to what Kevin suggested, "test tube babies, artificial insemination, and cloning" or even the Starship Enterprise coming back in time and having Doctor McCoy implanting the seed through a transporter into her ovaries, which is just as logical as Kevin's excuse. NONE of those methods were being used at the time of Brigham Young's statement, if, as Kevin says, there was no implication of sexual intercourse just because Brigham Young didn't say "sexual intercourse" it is even more ridiculous to argue that he could have been implying "test tube babies, artificial insemination, and cloning." Brigham Young clearrly stated that: "was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." Is there for a minute ANY proof that ANYBODY he was talking to that day was begotten by any means of " test tube babies, artificial insemination, and cloning?" He is really grasping for straws to come up with defense on that topic.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

I've seen this issue played out to its end with many LDS critics the past year or so, and the most respectful Evangelical scholars have learned to avoid this criticism like the plague because they really have no case. When Richard Mouw of Fuller seminary says,

"As an evangelical I must confess that I am ashamed of our record in relating to the Mormon community. To be sure, there are deep differences between our worldviews. But none of those disagreements give me or any other evangelical the license to propagate distorted accounts of what Mormons believe. By bearing false witness against our LDS neighbors, we evangelicals have often sinned not just against Mormons but against the God who calls us to be truth-tellers."

He is referring to people like you Dana. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Using T.J.'s/Kevin's line of logic, because Mouw didn't say my name directly, he wasn't talking about me.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: No, the newspaper article simply informs us that Deseret Books will not be selling the book. I said: "Interpretation-It won't make the LDS Church look good," giving the reason why. I never once made any complains because they wouldn't sell it. I expected them not to sell.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: This is how ridiculous your attacks have become? To start entire threads based on something as trivial as this! What discussion is suppose to ensue from this? I hadn't posted the responses would be limited to three emoticons. Is this the sort of fodder that needs to be filling up the bandwidth on the forum?

Do you pay the bills here? Are you moderator here? Do you have any say so here? Then it isn't YOUR place to be deciding what has a right to be posted here and what doesn't. You know no one is forcing you to respond to what I post. Oh, that's right, Kevin is, I'm sorry.


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: As for being "mad," you've had a serious attitude problem towards me before I ever even knew who you were.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Well I don't post things for the purpose of making people mad like you just did. Misery loves company. I admit bias because I am close to Kevin and his family and I did not appreciate your unchristian actions towards him and his family in Atlanta. But my friendship with Kevin hasn't rendered me incapable from discerning truth from fiction and intelligent analysis from sensationalistic propaganda.

Says you.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Guess what? I'm not the only one, GQ mag gave it four stars, Maxim gave it 5.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Well I guess that settles it. What better source for religious truth than GQ magazine and the quasi-porn Maxim!

Let's see who's laughing when the book becomes a number 1 best seller! Hey read what the Chicago Sun-Times has to say about the book in the next post.


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: No, it isn't hearsay, it published in the book I mentioned. IT'S ON PAPER BABY!!!

Nathan/Kevin Graham : Darrick's complaint is on paper but not the assertion that you've "seen Mormons who expect Christian bookstores to carry Pro-LDS books."

Let us know when you have removed your head out of the sand.


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: No disagreement, he is a wacko, but Deseret bookstores still sells his book as faith promoting,

Nathan: No it doesn't sell it as "faith promoting." When you walk in Deseret books there is no "faith promoting" section. Deseret books like any bookstore, sells some truly crap books because it is a business not a Church. Just because it is owned by the Church means nothing. They also sell Christian music from Jars of Clay to Amy Grant and books by famous Christian authors like C.S. Lewis. Is this stuff faith promoting too?

If they are selling it in Deseret books they do so because, yes, they consider it faith pomoting. The whole idea behind "Deseret " books to provide material they consider safe and faith pomoting to the members. Are you suggesting they don't sell faith pomoting books there?.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: just like they still sell Paul H. Dunn books which have been proven to be nothing but full of lies.

Nathan: Who? Anyway, so what?

Show me you some knowledge on Paul H. Dunn and we'll talk.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: But hey, why not, money is money.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Exactly Dana, this is a business like amazon for Pete's sake.

If you think that is their only mission, call them and ask them yourself.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Poor Ed, he has had nothing to do with any of my posts but he keeps getting dragged into it.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Ed is the reason you engaged Kevin a few years back, or so he said. You accused the Browns of lying about his excommunication but he loaned me a copy of their book and they nowhere accuse Ed of being excommunicated for adultery. They said he committed adultery which he doesn't deny but that is about it.

Again you show us you have no ability to comprehend what you are reading (if you really read it). Please quote were Ed Decker EVER said he commited adultery. As for your statement; "they nowhere accuse Ed of being excommunicated for adultery" get your copy out (if you really have one) go to page 225 and read: "Think about it-why would Ed Decker and Dick Baer, both apparently excommunicated from the LDS Church because of immorality, be interested in your spiritual welfare?"(They Lie In Wait To Deceive Vol IV. - Page 225)

They also said: "To prove that the former Mrs. John Edward Decker claimed in an affidavit that it was Ed's drinking and infidelity that broke up their marriage and family--not the LDS Church as he claims." (TLIWTD Vol IV,. Page 2)

And: "However, it was during this time, according to the former Mrs. Decker, that Ed chose to be inactive, drink, and keep company with other women-hardly the fault of the LDS Church." (TLIWTD Vol IV. Page 25)


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: I guess you and Kevin wants everybody to hate Ed as much as you two do.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: No, the point is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. You've tried to discredit Kevin because he follows liars, murders and adulterers. Well where would you be today if you hadn't met Ed? You were defending Ed Decker when Ed would not. I read the exchange he had with Wade Englund and it was similar to your arguments. He responds to questions with questions, always jumping around the subject, refusing to answer direct questions. Like when he was asked when and where he was ever a Gospel Doctrine teacher. Instead of answering the question he says, "go do your own research, the Church has records." Accordingly, no records like these are kept in the church in the first place, so Ed was just blowing smoke again and refusing to deal with his own lies. No accountability as usual.

Here's your problem with that defense, my salvation isn't linked to any actions of Ed Decker. Ed Decker isn't my prophet, what he does has nothing to do with my salvation. Even if you could prove that every word Ed Decker said was a Lie (this is no confession that it is for the record) it doesn't make the LDS Church true! My salvation is in my relationship with Jesus Christ. On Jeus and Jesus alone, not Ed Decker, not Walter Martin, not Sandra Tanner, not JP Holding, not anyone you want to drag into this wheither it has anything to do with the topic or not. On the other hand, the leaders of the LDS claim to be the spokesmen for God himself, what they say has everything to do with Kevin's salvation because he now puts his faith and trust into those teachings. It doesn't matter if you could prove everything Ed has said and done to be wrong. It still wouldn't make the LDS Church Gods only "true church."


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Mormons hate it because he has told more truth about the Mormon church then the Mormon church has.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Actually, from my experience Mormons cite Decker and Martin more than they do Owen and Mosser and other critics who are more friendly. They do this because it is so easy to use them as "examples" for the Evangelical attitude towards them and it proves embarrassing for the Evangelical movement as a whole.

More of Kevin's wishful thinking. But is this a confession that Mormon Apologists are misleading on purpose? Wouldn't that be using "sensationalist propaganda" to farther their agenda? Is that another one of those higher standads Kevin has set? I guess it's OK if Kevin acts like he claims Ed Decker does to support the LDS Church. Is Kevin a Mormon Ed Decker?

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Mormonism does not want people to know the meat of their religion. Because when people do, they stay far away.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: But as our own Evangelicals have noted, Decker is a liar and a sensationalist. The Tanners have said as much and now even Dick Baer agrees. So it isn't enough to say the Mormons don't judge Decker properly because he tells truth about them since this is just more question begging. You have to explain why people on his side of the fence agree with them!! So far you've offered no defense at all, yet you expect Mormons to defend your attacks against dozens of dead Mormons from the past 150 years.

It still doesn't answer why bring Ed into it when I've quoted nothing Ed said. I used the Tanners as my source concerning the LDS's teaching that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus. You, like Kevin, want to get away from what Mormonism really teaches by going to side issues that doesn't matter or are even related to the topic at hand. Which in this is a book about Mormonism that is about to come out.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Kevin's rude behavior and arrogance was one of the reasons Bill invited me.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Oh, now this is a revelation. Kevin will get a kick out of this. Bill was upset because Kevin had him up against the ropes on a number of issues, so no wonder he had to call in reinforcements. And from what I read Bill was just as rude as Kevin.

Yes we know it will make him feel special. It takes so little to do so.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Opinions are not facts,

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Which is why your opinions are irrelevant just as hot air.

Oh, now that hurt. :rofl:


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: I don't live to make you happy. But I do bring to the discussion 33 yrs of real life Mormon experiences, something YOU can't offer and something even Kevin can't offer.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: I don't think you have anyone truly fooled about your alleged "expertise" in the field of Mormonism. Your website demonstrates this and you've made it clear the way you misrepresent LDS doctrine and LDS administrative issues, that if you were truly LDS to begin with you were way out in left field taking notes on only the negatives.

Whatever you say Kevin.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Being Mormon sources, they would believe that the quotes intended to mean what they say.

Nathan/Kevin Graham: They do mean what they say, but they don't mean what you think they say or what you want them to say. You cannot force "sex" into the sentence no matter how desperately you try. You cannot force "LDS membership" into Woodruffs paragraphs no matter how desperately you try. So I agree the text speaks for itself but you are trying to speak for it.

This boy lives in Egypt because he is in De-Nile.:rofl:

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: "Critically examining of the material" is Mormonspeak for "reading it until you agree with us."

Nathan/Kevin Graham: And "that is what they in their own Church publication" is anti-Mormonspeak for "choose a sentence that provides shock value to a 21st century audience, regardless of context."

You're right, the Mormon church is the biggest producer of "anti-mormon" literature there is.

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

Dana: Well that would be true if you could find where I have ever promoted violence towards members of the LDS faith, you making such a statement shows that you're the one who is handing out "sensationalistic propaganda."

Nathan/Kevin Graham: Not at all, and I think everyone here knows that hate is the mother of all violence. There is nothing remotely Christian about your website or your attitude towards the LDS. Are you denying that you spread hatred and try to get people to hate Mormonism like you do? Mr. "I Hate Mormonism Inc." Morphing LDS leaders in graphics to look like Hitler.

I've had liberal Mormon apologists thank me for that Morphing of Boyd KKK Packer. Calling him an apostle of God is an abomination to the Lord. Only people who don't know the man or who are true blue Mormons find it offensive. My cat has more of a chance to be an apostle of God than he does.:rofl:


Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140658#post140658)
T.J. Maxx/Kevin Graham said:

How would you like it if I did the same with that photo of your child? If placed a balloon above it saying, "Like Father like Son, nothing but crap coming out of the mouth." Wouldn't that be considered hateful?

Think before you act.

Kevin can do what he wants, but do tell him to remember that he has donated a lot of wonderful pics from his wedding I could start on.

Let us know what Kevin tells you to say.

TTFN

[Exmo-Robertson]

Here is what The Chicago Sun-Times has said about the book:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/books/sho-sunday-krakauer06.html


God told them to

July 6, 2003

By Greg Lindenberg


Under the Banner of Heaven isn't the book Jon Krakauer intended to write. The author of Into the Wild and Into Thin Air says he started to write a more scholarly look at the history of Mormonism and religious fanaticism. Instead, research into that fanaticism led him in a disturbing direction--into true-crime territory. He has ended up producing a work almost as compelling as Joe McGinniss' Fatal Vision and Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter.

The July 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty and her 15-month-old daughter Erica serve as the unfortunate centerpiece of a tragic story that is as old as Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder and self-styled prophet, and as young as Elizabeth Smart.

The abduction of Elizabeth Smart, a Salt Lake City girl taken from her own bedroom in June 2002, allegedly was perpetrated by radical Mormon fundamentalist Brian David Mitchell. But that case--to which Krakauer devotes a chapter--had a happy ending. The Lafferty case did not. In fact, it is not over. Ron Lafferty, also a Mormon fundamentalist, still awaits execution by firing squad (his choice over lethal injection) for the brutal, ritualistic slayings of his sister-in-law and niece. The death sentence will probably be carried out some time in 2004 if not delayed by another appeal.

Ron Lafferty drew his brother Dan and two drifters into a murder plot by persuading them that he had experienced a revelation from God to "remove" his victims because Brenda Lafferty was having a bad influence on his brother, Allen. She was drawing him away from the core beliefs of Mormonism. Erica Lafferty had to be "removed" so she would not have to grow up without a mother, or to grow up to become like her.

Krakauer is interested primarily in the religious fervor that prompted this kind of crime, as well as the kidnapping of Smart. Relatively speaking, Mormonism is a modern religion, founded in the 1820s, and its historical members tended to be diarists who documented much of their lives. That made the author's quest into "the dark side of religious devotion" much easier to document.

He uses the past to inform the present. It is difficult to reconcile the fire-and-brimstone Mormonism of Smith and his successor, Brigham Young, which so directly spawned the fundamentalism of the Laffertys and of Mitchell, with today's popular image of Mormons as reformed polygamists who now call themselves Latter-Day Saints. But Krakauer does a superb job of connecting the dots.

The history of Mormonism, he shows, is fairly bloody. After being run out of parts of Missouri and Nauvoo, Ill., Joseph Smith himself was murdered at the hands of a mob in 1844. That killing was the seed for the grisly Mountain Meadows massacre and other crimes of retribution. In 1857, a wagon train heading West was ambushed and most of its 140 men, women and children were killed by a group of Mormons disguised as Indians ("the red sons of Israel," supposedly descended from the Lost Tribe), accompanied by a band of real Indians who later were blamed for the massacre. Some of the settlers' children were given to Mormon families and raised as their own, although a few were subsequently liberated.

From charges of forgery leveled at Joseph Smith and others, to admitted "lying for the Lord," financial fraud and perjury against non-Mormons, the religion has often been outside the law. Mormons call collecting welfare and other government assistance "bleeding the beast." But polygamy is the most well-known transgression.

Polygamy--known euphemistically to the Mormons as "plural marriage" or "spiritual wifery"--makes for some convoluted relationships. One of the challenges in reading this book is that it is not easy to track the sometimes incestuous relationships among Mormon families and dynasties.

"Unlike their present-day Mormon compatriots, Mormon Fundamentalists passionately believe that Saints have a divine obligation to take multiple wives. Followers engage in polygamy, they explain, as a matter of religious duty," the author states. And as depicted in this book, the practice appears to be no more than an excuse for men to sexually and mentally abuse and subjugate women and children.

Because Joseph Smith told his followers that they, too, could get revelations, from God, a series of "prophets"--often bearing the benign title "Uncle"--now hold sway over some 200 fundamentalist splinter groups that have formed over the years whenever someone thought that the established institution had gone astray from the core beliefs and principles of Smith and God. More than 20 fundamentalists, including Ron Lafferty and Ron Mitchell, have claimed to be the "one might and strong" that prophesy says will be sent by God to reinstate the doctrine of plural marriage and set the Mormon church back on the right path.

They have created theocratic communities in remote areas of Utah, Arizona, British Columbia and Mexico where they can more freely practice polygamy, and between 30,000 and 100,000 of them currently live in North America.

Ultimately, however, whether Mormonism is a real religion is beside the point. Krakauer claims that at approximately 11 million and counting, it is the fastest-growing faith in the Western Hemisphere. And true or not, as the book demonstrates, it drove Ron Lafferty to murder.

Krakauer's investigation into the nature of zealotry draws some timely parallels with Islam. There is the same schism between sincere adherents who preach peace and fanatical extremists who preach violence. Krakauer asks: Are religious fanatics crazy? "All religious belief is a function of nonrational faith. And faith, by its very definition, tends to be impervious to intellectual argument or academic criticism," he writes.

The case hinges on this idea: "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?" That is the difficult epistemological minefield through which the author not so lightly treads.

Under the Banner of Heaven will displease many current members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, other fundamentalist Christians or devout followers of most religions. The current LDS church undoubtedly will distance itself from the book.

But whether he is writing about Alaska, Mount Everest or Utah, Krakauer's subject remains the extremists among us who cut themselves off from civilization and are driven to great lengths to prove their faith or resolve.


Greg Lindenberg is a Wilmette-based writer and editor with a special interest in American literature and history.


Here is what was written concerning this book in the Deseret News today. Very interesting.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,510037633,00.html

Krakauer's book creates LDS flap
By Dennis Lythgoe
Deseret Morning News

Something unusual happened after I had finished writing my review of Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith." I received a lengthy e-mail from the LDS Church Media Relations Department containing a long "review" of Krakauer's book by Richard Turley, managing director of the LDS Family and Church History Department.
An official written reaction from the LDS Church to a publication criticizing the church may be a first.

Dana: Translation-They're worried about it.

Turley has written a laundry list of what he considers historical errors on Krakauer's part, involving Joseph Smith, the Nauvoo period, the persecution of early Mormons, the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Mark Hofmann forgeries. Turley believes that Krakauer's book "may appeal to gullible persons," but he suggests "serious readers who want to understand Latter-day Saints and their history need not waste their time on it."

Dana: This comes from the LDS teaching, "When the leaders have spoken the thinking has been done." They have read the book, so now you don't have too.

Turley says Krakauer provides "no scientific methodology for measuring extremism," asserting that "It seems to be especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing toward religious pursuits." And he concludes that "Krakauer does violence to Mormon history in order to tell his story of violent faith."
Evidently, Turley sent his opinions to a number of different news organizations around the country, because shortly after receiving this e-mail, an indignant reply from Krakauer himself arrived via e-mail. Krakauer writes that he is "saddened" that Turley, "a high-ranking church official" who speaks "for the LDS leadership . . . elected to regard my book in such a reductionist light."

Here is one reason the Church is doing spin control now. It is currently (as of 2:44 p.m PST) ranked at #41 at amazon.com and the book hasn't even been released yet. That is up from #52 yesterday.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385509510/qid=1057527938/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5500407-7702352?v=glance&s=books

This isn't the last we'll hear on this issue.
Dana

[dizzle]

Dana, back to back posts are discouraged. Give some time for responses or edit your prior posts to include the new information. Since your posts were not directed at one particular poster, but in more of a general nature, I will not mess with them, but please be cognisant of this in the future.

[Bill the Cat]

Oh, now this is a revelation. Kevin will get a kick out of this. Bill was upset because Kevin had him up against the ropes on a number of issues, so no wonder he had to call in reinforcements. And from what I read Bill was just as rude as Kevin.


Wow, mind readers huh?? I invited Dana, honestly on a whim. I was doing some online research , on Kevin, none the less, to see if any articles out there mention him. I ran across Dana's site and emailed him inviting him to the forum.

Kevin neither had me "on the ropes" nor is Dana my reinforcement. I am glad Dana is here to share a unique perspective of the LDS church. I would love to see where I was rude before Kevin totally insulted me. I tried to keep it above board, but he slammed me for so many things in such a rude fashion, that I returned the volley.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Today @ 01:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141843#post141843)
Bill the Cat:



Wow, mind readers huh?? I invited Dana, honestly on a whim. I was doing some online research , on Kevin, none the less, to see if any articles out there mention him. I ran across Dana's site and emailed him inviting him to the forum.



I'm sorry, I did make an assumption you never stated. I thought that in part because in the first e-mail you sent me I remember laughing because you mentioned how rude Kevin was being. I was thinking, "yep, that's Kevin Graham."

[Bill the Cat]

Dana, like I said, I invited you here. If I were not interested in your take, I would not have done so. Thank you for coming here. The information you have posted here has been very relevant to the discussions at hand. Thanks for the quality posts and the funny ones too!! Some may not like the tone, but I find them no worse than JP's in some places. He's a hoot and so are you!!

Stick around!!! :btc:

[Exmo-Robertson]

I don't think they like it. :smile:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510037629,00.html

Author blunders over LDS history
By Dennis Lythgoe
Deseret Morning News

UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN: A STORY OF VIOLENT FAITH, by Jon Krakauer, Doubleday, 358 pages, $26.


Jon Krakauer is a respected adventure author whose books "Into the Wild" and "Into Thin Air" have won him significant popularity. Oddly, he has shifted his interests from physical adventure to "extremes of religious belief" — specifically the Mormons.
Krakauer's new non-fiction book "Under the Banner of Heaven" is billed as an American story of "Taliban-like theocracies . . . controlled by renegade Mormon prophets." The major focus is the grisly double murder of Allen Lafferty's wife and baby, committed by his brothers Ron and Dan in the mid-1980s. Krakauer declares that "the underbelly" of Mormonism is revealed through the hideous Lafferty crime because the brothers believe they were "divinely inspired" to commit murder.
The author then jumps from the Laffertys to polygamy and other facets of what he calls "Mormonism's violent past." For instance, he treats once more, and in great detail, the subject that has become the veritable bad dream of Mormon history, the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857.
So why does a successful non-Mormon writer feel compelled to dabble in Mormon history when he has no background in it? And when he does so, why does he present only a one-sided account? I can't answer the first question, but the answer to the second is that Krakauer's knowledge of Mormonism is obviously scant.
He includes a reasonably balanced bibliography at the end of the book, but he seems to have used only a few of those works. He has drawn heavily from Fawn Brodie's discredited biography of Joseph Smith, "No Man Knows My History," to explain Joseph Smith's intentions and accomplishments, as well as the principle doctrinal beliefs of Mormonism. He refers to Brodie's book as "a masterpiece."
Krakauer's thesis is that because religious devotion leads to extremism and violence, all religious devotion is wrong-headed and dangerous. Since he admits to being agnostic himself, he lacks the personal understanding of religious devotion necessary to deal with such a complex topic.
That doesn't stop him from being tough on both Joseph Smith (whom he refers to as "a megalomaniacal tyrant" who "frequented houses of ill fame") and Brigham Young (whom he describes as "an unapologetic racist.") Krakauer also exposes the practices of "Mormon Fundamentalists," those who persist in practicing polygamy more than a century after the LDS Church abolished it, but mostly fails to differentiate between these extremists who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and mainstream Mormons who are.
Krakauer makes too many small errors about Mormon history to list here. But worse than the errors of fact are the routine insinuations. He writes that Ezra Taft Benson was "a red baiter and John Birch Society supporter," then adds in a footnote that "Benson . . . eventually became president and prophet of the entire LDS Church" for nine years. The supposition is that Benson acted as "a red baiter" throughout his presidency, which is, of course, not true.

Dana: His grandson, Steve Benson, disagrees with this statement:

"The reviewer is abysmally ignorant or willfully deceitful. My grandfather was long a red baiter and John Birch supporter.

"When ETB eventually became Church president, however, his handlers quickly got control of his sermon content and muted his right-wing oratory. Also contributing to the de-emphasis on his favorite political topics was his failing health, which led his office staff to compose his speeches for him, in which they, not he, toned down the reactionary rhetoric.

"I have previously written in some detail about those undeniable facts on this board."

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/w-agora.php3?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery

Deseret News:
One of the most offensive chapters is called "Cumorah," which deals with the LDS Church's Hill Cumorah Pageant," held each July in Palmyra, N.Y., as a celebration of the Book of Mormon. Krakauer manages to make this religious event held outdoors appear to be a circus-like "jamboree," attended by Mormon simpletons such as "Brother Richard, a wide, cheerful man with liver spots and a comb-over, who brags that he has 28 grandchildren."
As for the pageant, it "has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richard's comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke . . . families sprawl on blankets along the edges of the meadow, eating fried chicken and Jell-O salad from plastic coolers."
Krakauer even devotes a chapter to the recent Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case, making unjustified proclamations without attribution so that he can compare Brian Mitchell to the Laffertys.
This author should stick with books about physical adventure.
:rant:

[Exmo-Robertson]

Mormon church contests new Krakauer book

Friday, July 11, 2003 Posted: 2:44 PM EDT (1844 GMT)


SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Best-selling author Jon Krakauer has built a reputation on gripping portrayals of those who push their physical limits. Now the writer has set his sights on spiritual extremes, and his upcoming book is already creating headaches for the image-conscious Mormon church.

"Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith," in bookstores Tuesday, looks at the dangers of religious extremism through those who claim to follow the original teachings of the Mormon church, notably the tenet of polygamy.

These Mormon breakaways, who often call themselves fundamentalists, still practice polygamy -- even though The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially abandoned the practice in 1890 and works to distance itself from the subject.

Krakauer, who declined to be interviewed, is best known for "Into Thin Air," his firsthand account of a doomed expedition on Mount Everest. That book, along with his earlier "Into the Wild," were national best sellers.

In "Under the Banner of Heaven," Krakauer turns his attention to the 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty and her 15-month-old daughter, Erica, in rural Utah at the hands of Brenda's fundamentalist brothers-in-law.

The author uses those deaths as to argue that, because of Mormon inconsistencies and silences about the dark corners of the faith's past, the LDS church has been unable to break free from embarrassing and sometimes tragic episodes.

The church has been forceful in rebuking Krakauer's book. Spokesman Michael Otterson called the writer's attempt to link religious zealots with Mormon history and doctrine "a full-frontal assault on the veracity of the modern church."

The slayings were committed by Dan and Ron Lafferty, who slit their victims' throats and later claimed God had ordered the slayings. Dan Lafferty is serving a life sentence and Ron Lafferty, who claimed to have the revelation to kill, is on death row.

With Dan Lafferty as a main source, Krakauer writes that the brothers decided to practice polygamy and committed the killings because Brenda opposed them.

Krakauer tries to add a larger context to the killings and their alleged connection to Mormon fundamentalism by examining the secretive communities of polygamists, those who have given up the practice and the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case. Alleged abductor Brian David Mitchell claims God told him to take Elizabeth as a "sister wife."


Dan Lafferty is serving a life sentence for the killing of his sister-in-law. The crime, which Lafferty and his brother claim was ordered by God, is the subject of Jon Krakauer's new book.
Krakauer's "basic thesis appears to be that people who are religious are irrational, and that irrational people do strange things," Otterson said. "He does a huge disservice to his readers by promulgating old stereotypes."

The Mormon church has nothing to do with fundamentalists, church officials say. It excommunicates those who advocate plural marriage. Still, zealots such as Lafferty and Mitchell tarnish the church's image, and polygamy remains inextricably linked to the church's early decades.

Publishing house Doubleday has printed 350,000 copies of "Under the Banner of Heaven" so far, though the LDS church-owned Deseret Book chain won't stock it.

Krakauer's language in the book is pointed: "Mormon authorities treat the fundamentalists as they would a crazy uncle -- they try to keep the 'polygs' hidden in the attic, safely out of sight, but the fundamentalists always seem to be sneaking out to appear in public at inopportune moments to create unsavory scenes, embarrassing the entire LDS clan."

Church historian Richard Turley said Krakauer has taken a sensational approach to the faith's history.

"Ostensibly focused on murders committed by brothers who had been excommunicated from the church, Krakauer's book is actually a condemnation of religion generally," Turley wrote in a review.

Krakauer shot back in an equally blunt written statement, accusing the church of continuing to distort its past.

"I am especially disappointed," he wrote, "that they feel such an urgent need to attack writers, like me, who present balanced, carefully researched accounts of Mormon history that happen to diverge from the official, highly expurgated church version."

Story is located at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/07/11/mormon.book.ap/index.html Here is a picture of Dan Lafferty.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Krakauer: Church rigidly controls its past


By Jon Krakauer


At the end of June, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued an official "response" to my new book, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. Disseminated nationwide more than two weeks before my book was scheduled to appear on bookstore shelves, this pre-emptive attack was authored by Richard E. Turley, Jr., a high-ranking church official who serves as managing director of the LDS Family and Church History Department.

In his lengthy, carefully worded screed, Elder Turley characterized Under the Banner of Heaven as "a decidedly one-sided and negative view of Mormon history." According to his assessment, my book was written as "a condemnation of religion generally," and the Mormon faith in particular.

It saddens me that Elder Turley, speaking for the LDS leadership (and by extension for the church as a whole), elected to regard my book in such a reductionist light. Other reviewers have assessed Under the Banner of Heaven quite differently.
. . . [I]t is impossible to comprehend the actions of the murderous Lafferty brothers, or any other Mormon fundamentalist, without first making a serious effort to plumb their theological beliefs, and that requires some understanding of LDS history, along with an understanding of the complex and highly fluid teachings of the religion's remarkable founder, Joseph Smith. The life of Smith and the history of his church may be considered from myriad perspectives, of course. And therein lies the basis for the Mormon leadership's profound unhappiness with my book.

The leaders of the modern LDS Church deem the history of their religion to be sacred, and have long endeavored to retain tight proprietary control over how that history is presented to the world. Indeed, LDS leaders have explicitly stated that they believe accounts of Mormon history should be, above all else, "faith promoting" -- that is to say, accounts of Mormon history should be celebratory rather than critical, and should downplay, omit or deny sensitive or unsavory aspects of that history.

As Apostle Boyd Packer (presently second in line to become LDS president and prophet) declared in a notorious 1981 speech, "There is a temptation . . . to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith-promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful. . . . "

"In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary. . . . In the church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it."

Dissent from official church teachings is not tolerated in the LDS faith. Because of this obsession to rigidly control how the Mormon past is interpreted and presented, histories sanctioned by the LDS Church tend to be exceedingly partisan and notably incomplete. For example, in 1997 the church released a manual (published in 22 languages and designated as required reading for virtually every Mormon adult) titled Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, in which this great Mormon leader was intentionally portrayed as being monogamous -- despite the fact that few scholars, Mormon or otherwise, would dispute that Young actually was married to at least 20 women, and was probably married to more than 50.

Even a cursory survey of other LDS-sanctioned publications will reveal a similarly disturbing sanitization of the historical record. According to the eminent Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn, "The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials."

As I wrote in Under the Banner of Heaven, Dr. Quinn argued that a "so-called 'faith-promoting' Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problems from other sources. One of the most painful demonstrations of that fact has been the continued spread of unauthorized polygamy among the Latter-day Saints during the last seventy-five years, despite the concerted efforts of Church leaders to stop it."

Quinn pointed out that after officially renouncing the doctrine of plural marriage in 1890, the highest leaders in fact continued to sanction polygamy, covertly, for many years. And this casuistry, he insisted, has driven many Mormons into the embrace of fundamentalism.

"The central argument of the enemies of the LDS Church," Quinn said, "is historical, and if we seek to build the Kingdom of God by ignoring or denying the problem areas of our past, we are leaving the Saints unprotected."

. . . "On the very first page of The Book of Mormon," Quinn continues, "Joseph Smith wrote that if it contained mistakes or faults, 'it be the mistakes of men.' And this same thing is stated in various ways throughout the text that follows -- that errors in this sacred book are possible, even likely. I have always believed that Mormonism was the one true church, but I don't think it has ever been infallible. And I certainly don't believe it has a monopoly on the truth."

I happen to share Dr. Quinn's perspective. The LDS Church aggressively asserts that it is mankind's "one true church," and currently has more than 60,000 missionaries roaming the globe, intent on converting the world to the teachings of Joseph Smith. It seems to me that if Mormons are willing to make such a strong assertion -- if Mormons aspire to convince nonbelievers that their religion is more valid than other faiths, and that the doctrines of Joseph Smith are truly handed down from God -- Mormons should be equally willing to open the archives of the LDS Church to all interested parties, and to actively encourage a vigorous, unfettered examination of the church's rich and fascinating past.

I am therefore disappointed that the men who direct the LDS Church and its 12 million members adamantly believe otherwise. I am disappointed that they continue to do everything in their considerable power to keep important aspects of the church's past hidden in the shadows. And I am especially disappointed that they feel such an urgent need to attack writers, like me, who present balanced, carefully researched accounts of Mormon history that happen to diverge from the official, highly expurgated church version.

Located at: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07132003/commenta/74671.asp

[Exmo-Robertson]

Here is an interesting follow up to this topic. It is found at: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510040206,00.html


By Ben Winslow
KSL-TV and
Geoffrey Fattah
Deseret Morning News

DRAPER — Convicted double murderer Dan Lafferty told the Deseret Morning News a year ago that he was eagerly awaiting Jon Krakauer's new book describing the murders he and his brother, Ron Lafferty, committed in 1984.

Lafferty said he considers Krakauer's just-released book, "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith," to be a part of God's plan for him to spread his "strange" revelation.
On Tuesday at the Utah State Prison, Lafferty reiterated in an interview with KSL Newsradio 1160 that he slashed the throats of his sister-in-law and her 15-month-old daughter 19 years ago — on July 24, 1984 — in a "quest for truth" and as part of "understanding God."
Lafferty gives Krakauer's book a rave review, although the book has received mixed reviews from major publications. And the book has rankled leadership at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"I got a chance to read it. I liked it a lot," Lafferty said in the interview with KSL.
During the interview, Lafferty, clad in a prison jumpsuit, remained chained to the floor, a long rubber-banded beard meandering down his chest.
"There are a number of inaccuracies that are not significant, but Jon, being an outsider, I think he did a good job."
One example, he said, is Krakauer reportedly said the murders took place in Provo, when they actually occurred in American Fork.
Reviewers have described the book as a broad, outsider's view of Mormon fundamentalism, with the Lafferty brothers as poster children for religious belief gone awry.
The Economist magazine described the book as focusing on Mormon fundamentalism but falling short in explaining the LDS Church's phenomenal growth worldwide.
The book and its resulting controversy has put the spotlight on one of Utah's most infamous murder cases just in time for the murders' 19-year anniversary.

Ron and Dan Lafferty are in prison for the ritual murders of Brenda Lafferty and her daughter, Erica. Dan is serving life without parole, while Ron is on death row with his last remaining appeals passing through the hourglass.
Ron Lafferty has declined to give interviews to news reporters regarding the book.
Dan Lafferty claims the murders were ordered by God as a revelation while the brothers were involved with a religious group called The School of the Prophets (the group claims both men were kicked out for their radical beliefs four months before the murders).
"I believe it was God's business. I'm doing it for God," Lafferty told KSL. "It's all part of God's strange plan, and it's strange, that's an understatement . . . (The book) is probably the closest thing to being a celebrity now. I've never had a celebrity effect."
Leaders of the LDS Church say they resent being associated with such a man, who himself jokes about being crazy.
"This book is not history, and Krakauer is no historian," said LDS church spokesman Mike Otterson. "He is a storyteller who cuts corners to make the story sound good. His basic thesis appears to be that people who are religious are irrational, and that irrational people do strange things."
In addition to focusing on the Lafferty brothers, Krakauer writes about church founder Joseph Smith and the organization of the LDS Church in 1830.
Otterson said Krakauer focuses on a handful of historians who are "unsympathetic" to the church.
The book's author, who also penned "Into Thin Air," expressed surprise at reaction from members of the LDS Church. During a Tuesday appearance on NBC's "Dateline," Krakauer referred to Mormon culture as a "culture of violence."
On the show, Krakauer said he doesn't want to put Dan Lafferty in a favorable light.
"Dan Lafferty and Osama bin Laden are cut from the same cloth," he told "Dateline."
In reaction the the church's critical remarks, Krakauer said he was surprised that Mormons were angered by his book, adding he felt he distinctly explained the difference between Mormons and Mormon fundamentalists.
Lafferty, who believes he is the prophet Elijah and will declare the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, said he has spent most of his recent days responding to mail generated by the book.
Just as the murders themselves, Lafferty said Krakauer's book was all part of a divine plan to spread Lafferty's prophesies, including his personal revelation that when Christ comes he will lead a wild party.
"It's OK that people think I'm crazy and that's OK. I even joke about being crazy. It doesn't bother me that everybody thinks I'm insane," Lafferty said.
The book also returns to the public spotlight the infamous murders, how Dan Lafferty took a vacuum cleaner cord and strangled Brenda Lafferty as she begged for her child's life, and how he then took a barber's razor and slashed the throats of her and her daughter. He then wiped the blade on the kitchen curtains.
"I couldn't imagine myself, with my personality, which is to want to do what's right, I could never not do what I did," he said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LDS Church statement

"Krakauer's portrayal of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is utterly at odds with what I — and millions like me — have come to know of the church, its goodness and the decency of its people. This book is an attempt to tell the story of the so-called fundamentalist or polygamous groups in Utah, and to tie their beliefs to the doctrines and the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The result is a full frontal assault on the veracity of the modern church." — Mike Otterson, LDS Church spokesman

[Jeff Charles]

This very same slander-type "guilt by association" book could be written about Catholics just as easily. You could start with some serial killers who were Catholic, then move to the Inquisition and end with Priests raping alter boys. It could also be written about Baptists, starting with support for slavery and spanking and paddling children, etc. You could, in fact, very easily take some nuts or violent people from any faith at all and "connect the dots" with just about everyone else in it, if you so choose.

The Mormons I have known have been very nice people, very respectful, open, and hospitable. They are one of few religions to have suffered open official religious persecution in the US, regardless of whether their faith is "right" or "wrong."

To me school paddling and spanking children is a false teaching that has hurt the US a great deal, both with violence and our educational system. Utah, 2/3 Mormon, does not allow school paddling. The parents are moving way from spanking as well. It is the best educated state in the US by far.

So, we can start there and say they are doing something right too.

[freelight]

Hi all,

This issue of mormonism is a mesh-mash of complexities and simplicities as seen from its adherents and its opponenants. But due to its very nature and historicity(and all its ofspring)...a very fascinating field.

Indeed, the modern church is in the sanitization business in its efforts to maintain its image as 'christian' and stay as pleasantly appealing as possible. I suppose those members who have little concern over trifles of the past...and enjoy their current mormon experience...have little to concern themselves over. There are many layers in all this...and many appear to have their comfort zones amid the layers. But hey, ....its all good aboard the good ship mormonism...as Ferguson once alluded to. At last it comes down to each individuals conscience and pursuit of knowledge - whether one chooses to affiliate and endorse staying in a religious system with all its complexities, history and baggage. One may argue that even though the past as colourful as it was....had its 'sins'....now we are reformed and perhaps can learn from the past mistakes of our founding leaders....and still maintain our wonderful testimonies of the truthfulness of church, regardless.

Some of us are more devout to our souls conscience and spiritual sense....and have been led out of mormonism and its cult-ure....due to our coming knowledge and at last our souls directives led by what we perceive to be the Spirit of truth or intellectual honesty (some both, others lean towards one aspect than the other). For me....it was a blend of both spiritual truth and intellectual honesty(in my perception) that led me into other paths in the search for authentic christianity and experience of God.

I am currently involved in a mormon-mystic discussion group and released some commentaries on 'Jesus in the BoM'. (a survey of Jesus teachings therein comparing with the NT account). These days I have relaxed my former zeal for showing the inconsistencies/malignancies of mormonism and gear more towards holding up the light of spiritual truth and principle as found in the person, teaching and ethic of Jesus. This group blends various schools of metaphysics with mormonism in its more arcane, occult and esoteric aspects. So you can imagine the potpourri of stuff brewing in that pot. lol.

Dana, I will have to check out your site on mormonism. You can check out mine too - link at bottom of my homepage. (hardly a professional website - but something :)


Blessings in the Light,


paul