Talk:Under the Banner of Heaven

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Books Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In Krakauer's forward he states that “faith is the very antithesis of reason” (xxiii) and proceeds to bash the crap out of the mormons and religion in general. It'd be nice if someone could spend some time on carefully explaining this in a balanced way for the main article - because the Mormon church responded to this (external link) and has some really good points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.152.53 (talk) 15:47, February 2, 2006

To the person above: Please sign your comments.

Also, the comments I read from the church's press release did not impress me at all. It was the adult response of "NUH-UH!", which was not unexpected but still disapointing. The part implying that Krakauer is comparing the church to the

I deleted the section containing the LDS Church's official rebuttal to Mr. Krakauer's book. I did so to maintain a NPOV tone for the article, and to keep Wikipedia from becoming a mere vehicle of the opinions of any one group on this matter. I also did it because the text is copyrrighted material, and can onlt be reproduced here with permission of the LDS Church leadership. If I have offended anyone by doing this, I do sincerely apologise. That was not my intention. Wandering Star 23:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit removing all that stuff from the body of the article. However, the LDS response and Krakauer's rebuttal are ok as external links, I've re-added them. --Duk 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only read a little more than half of the book when it diaappeared from my truck. It was interesting to note familiarity with some of the characters discussed such as an "Uncle Rulon." As a contract trucker/household mover for North American Van Lines, I moved a man whose first name was Rulon and who said he was a Mormon prophet to Mesa, Arizona sometime in the mid 80's. At loading, he was sort of an obstreperous person who made our work so difficult that I offered to let him find someone else to do the job. The difficulty made his name easy to remember. At destination, his attitude wasn't much different but he had some things to say that were not consistent with what I understood the Mormon faith to stand for. For one thing, he said that drinking caffeine was Ok if it was a soft drink like Pepsi because in his words "We own Pepsi." He said that the prohibition was only against coffee, tea, and other sources of caffeine. It also was somewhat unusual that no other family members were present or seen at either the loading or destination. 71.119.187.254 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) [email protected][reply]

I for one think that including the LDS Church's rebuttal would be informative. I regret that it was removed. This book is regarded by many as anti-Mormon. I would like to have known why. SLCMormon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the article was turning into a battle ground of charges and countercharges. So it got stripped down to the simple facts, and external links to the criticism and countercharges were added.

I have no problem including more information on the controversy, as long as it is neutral. You mention including the LDS Church's rebuttal; I assume you don't mean the entire text (it's enormous and copyrighted), but rather a synopsis. Give it a go, SLCMormon. --Duk 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarded by many"--the often-used phrase that indicates an unsubstantiated impression. Regarded by whom? Mormons? Are there a lot of non-Mormons who regard the book as "anti-Mormon"? Can we name five? By "anti-Mormon" do you mean "critical of Mormonism" or "critical of Mormons"? Clearly it's critical of some Mormons, but there is nowhere in the book that Krakauer stuffs his opinion directly in. Critical of X does not mean anti-X. One could argue that the selection of facts itself can constitute a more or less critical account. I'm sympathetic to that point--selection of, context of, and lack of the whole story surrounding an event can completly frame the meaning inferred by readers. Nevertheless, I challenge you to find evidence that the book is "controversial" outside of the opinions of members of the church itself. Chafe66 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been several years since the book came out and there is now a clear separation between fundamentalist Mormons and the mainstream Mormon Church. It would seem the book helps to make that distinction clearer. Is there anything written recently about that should that be included in the article? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your talking about, I grew up in Utah and have a better understanding of the Mormon religion than most as I experienced it first hand. In our lifetimes, there has always been a very clear separation between fundamentalist Mormons and the LDS church, the book did not create this separation. The idea that they are not separated simply came from ignorant rumors, I can't tell you how many times people have asked me about the mainstream LDS church being polygamist, when they haven't been for a century. The main point of this book is to show how religious zealots tend to cause harm, the belief that God is talking directly to you makes people feel empowered to do whatever they want and ignore the law, because God's communication to you supersedes any man-made law, the background about the church is required to really understand why these murders were committed. The fact that the LDS church takes offense to this book is very revealing. It's already obvious to anyone who pays attention that more death occurs in the name of God than for any other reason worldwide. The LDS church's number one concern though, is and always has been, making themselves look perfect in the eyes of the world so as to attract more members and bring in more tithe. The mainstream church is infamous for trying to cover up its past and hide certain "ugly" agendas, and surprisingly do so amazingly well. I would say a great majority of LDS members know very little about their church history, which is necessary, because if they did they would probably stop being members. In my humble opinion, the world would be better off without religion of any kind, but I guess the closest we'll ever get to that is John Lennon's song "Imagine". -War wizard90 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is challenged as to certain fundamental facts and historical errors. These will be amended soon.

That sentence was included at the top of the section as of a few minutes before 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC). I saw nothing on this talk page to support this header, so I removed it. You can discuss here if the header should be replaced —Crazytales (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why but the Controversy section has no information on specific items that may be controversial. The ambiguous "...LDS Church Richard E. Turley argued that the book contained mistakes and incorrect assertions..." is genuinely useless in this section. It is tantamount to having a Controversy section that states "there were controversial issues in this book." At least some indication should be made as to what might be controversial. For example, In the Wikipedia article regarding Joseph Smith, it is asserted that the Governor who arrested Smith stated that the Mormons were chased out because "their beliefs and actions were too different to have survived in Illinois" which would make this a religious issue, while this book asserts they were disliked because of economics. Herein lies a specific controversy: was Smith a martyr for his faith (as suggested by the Governor) or a victim of economic jealousy (as suggested by the book)? I don't know, but it is important and specific and should be mentioned as part of the reason the book is controversial. I do not think all disputed claims should be included, but certainly one or two weighty specifics are worthy of inclusion so that the reader may understand better *why* there might be a controversy rather than simply *that* there is a controversy. For all the reader knows at this point, all of the controversies could be about the latest census count of Utah! N0w8st8s (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)n0w8st8s[reply]

I agree mostly. The section is mislabeled. The response of an acknowledged public figure (or two) from an organization who tries to defend that organization against an extended criticism does not constitute a controversy. In this case Turley is simply disputing claims made in the book. That doesn't make the book in any way controversial. If some non-partisan historians started objecting, we might be headed toward a controversy. Why not just change the section title to "Church of LDS Response" or something? Chafe66 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since an editor chose to revert this edit as vandalism, despite the fact that it was made in accord with

ZeppoShemp (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There were violent clashes between Mormons and non-Mormons, culminating in

This sentence in "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints history" section is fairly lengthy and confusing. It could probably be split into 2 or 3 sentences. I'd do it, but I'm not sure what it's saying, and I don't have the time or interest to figure it out. Frankensteinteen (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]