I grew up where Dan and Ron Lafferty brutally murdered Brenda Lafferty and her 15-month old daughter Erica. Until last month, though, I hadn’t read John Krakauer’s account of the case, Under the Banner of Heaven. I didn’t even know the murders had taken place in my hometown. I was only 3 when the murders occurred and didn’t move into the town until 1990, so that might explain why I wasn’t aware. Then again, Ron’s second trial was held in 1996 right under my nose and my family knew one of the intended victims! I guess we were so distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal we didn’t have time to pay attention to events closer to home.
I guess what being raised Mormon in the area where the murders took place couldn’t do, Andrew Garfield could–and I finally listened to the book in anticipation of his role in the upcoming Hulu miniseries. So, a mere 19 years after its release, here I am to review it.
The book is not just a blow-by-blow account of the crime. It alternates between an account of the Lafferty brothers’ upbringing, beliefs, murder, and trial; background, interviews, and stories from FLDS communities; and LDS Church history events such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s practice of polygamy, conflicts with the federal government, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the manifesto and its aftermath. So it is as much a Church history volume–albeit with a very distinct focus–as it is about the crime itself, and it also gives a lot of history and background on FLDS polygamous communities in Arizona, Utah, and Canada. I’m curious about how the miniseries will work because there really isn’t much “investigation” of the murders in the book; Brenda’s husband Allen Lafferty knew exactly who had committed the crime. The real mystery, I suppose, is how Dan and Ron–two men raised in a conservative but not a fundamentalist Mormon family, one of whom had been on the city council–came to commit such a crime and claim that it was God who told them so.
I’m not going into a detailed account of what’s in the book, or even the story. Since I listened instead of reading, I don’t have notes or quotes, but I wanted to highlight some of the interesting issues the book raised for me and thoughts about the upcoming miniseries. But I’ll give an overview and then some thoughts / discussion points after that. I don’t have a lot of conclusions–just jumping off points for other folks to share if they’ve read or are familiar with the story.
Summary
The very short version is that the Lafferty brothers were raised LDS in Utah County. They were from a conservative family and from an early age had significant distrust for the government, which distrust grew over time–eventually, they claimed they were not subject to government authority at all and stopped paying taxes (including sales tax in stores …) and obeying laws.
They also started to embrace Mormon fundamentalism and polygamy after reading about it in a historical pamphlet in the BYU library. Dan was excommunicated in 1982 when he tried to marry his 14-year old stepdaughter as a second wife, and Ron’s wife left him when he tried to get her to practice polygamy. Ron blamed three people for his wife’s departure: his wife’s friend, the stake president who had excommunicated him, and his brother Allen’s wife Brenda. In 1984, as part of the “School of the Prophets” they had joined, Ron claimed to receive a revelation he called the “removal revelation” that required him to murder those three individuals:
“Thus saith the Lord unto my servants the prophets. It is my will and commandment that ye remove the following individuals in order that my work might go forward. For they have truly become obstacles in my path and I will not allow my work to be stopped. First thy brother’s wife Brenda and her baby, then Chloe Low and then Richard Stowe. And it is my will that they be removed in rapid succession.”
Ron Lafferty’s “Removal Revelation”
On July 24, 1984, Ron and Dan carried out this revelation and brutally murdered Brenda and her toddler daughter. They did not find Chloe Low at home, and felt “guided” not to murder Richard Stowe and instead to flee to Reno. After a few weeks in hiding, they were found and arrested.
Dan Lafferty represented himself during his trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to two life sentences without the possibility of parole. Some observers believe he was spared the death penalty because he manipulated one of the jurors. At least at the time the book was written, Dan was cellmates with Mark Hofmann. He has expressed no remorse whatsoever for his crime and continues to assert that God told him to do it.
Ron Lafferty was also found guilty but was sentenced to the death penalty. After numerous appeals, his conviction was reversed. He was re-tried in 1996 after lengthy proceedings to determine his competency to stand trial. He was again sentenced to death, but he died of natural causes in 2019 and was not executed.
Thoughts
Violence and fundamentalism in LDS culture: For me, the biggest question posed by the book is to what extent the Lafferty brothers and their beliefs stem from issues coded into the LDS Church’s DNA and to what extent can it be blamed on other factors. Is the Lafferty brand of fundamentalism different in kind or merely by degree from historical and even contemporary mainstream LDS Church teachings? While listening, I thought a lot about how distrust of the government, violence, paranoia, and polygamy are in embedded our Church DNA. The Lafferty brothers took that to an extreme … but where do we still see those strains today?
I also think this story reinforces the danger of believing that God would ever command a person to kill. We’ve had discussions about Nephi killing Laban and Abraham and Isaac, and one thing I keep coming back to is that if it’s not OK for everyone, it’s not OK for anyone. Holding space for the possibility that God would command a murder is holding space for something like what the Laffertys did, and I’m not convinced it’s different. Saying “their revelation wasn’t true, Nephi’s was” doesn’t work for me–how do we know? Several people were convinced by Ron’s “removal revelation.” Which leads to my next point …
The reliability of following the spirit. Probably the most disturbing part of the book for me was listening to Dan describe the day of the murders. He repeatedly referred to ways that he felt calm, clear-headed, and was inspired to do one thing or another. He is absolutely convinced that the spirit commanded him to commit the murders, and the way he described the “promptings” is basically exactly the same way you might describe the spirit prompting you to take some bread to a neighbor or make any other kind of choice. Or the way, perhaps, that Dallin Oaks “knows” that God hates gay marriage.
So again, without a baseline of acceptable behavior and morals and values, I think the idea of “personal revelation” can be pretty sticky. Now, I know one can say that this doesn’t count because their revelation would contradict what the prophets say. But I don’t really think that addresses the fundamental problem of teaching people to rely on feelings AND justifying times when people relied on feelings to hurt other people.
Another interesting point here is the discussion of Ron’s insanity defense. Ron’s lawyers consistently argued that because he truly believed God had told him to kill someone, and he had a different perception of reality than others based on his religious beliefs, he was not competent to stand trial. The prosecution countered that religious folks believe TONS of stuff that isn’t provable scientifically, so to say that can constitute a mental illness is definitely a slippery slope. Ultimately, the argument that prevailed was that Ron may have had religious beliefs that he’s chosen to accept but he was capable of understanding and interacting with reality (unlike a schizophrenic who is completely disconnected from reality, non-affective, and can’t really carry on a conversation).
White washing Church history: This theme comes out in a number of ways for me. First, even though I am pretty well-versed in Church history, I was still shocked at some of the quotes and events (especially the description of Mountain Meadows). If I had read this book 3 years ago, I would have been BEYOND shocked. I do think the author is hyperbolic in places and draws inferences that not all people would draw. I didn’t love how he constantly referred to outsiders as “gentiles” (as though that’s how Mormons talk, when I don’t know any mainstream LDS folks who talk that way). I also felt he was unfair and sensational in his treatment of the Elizabeth Smart story (not that he got facts wrong, but the way he used and spun some of them, and focused so much on how rich her family is). So that gives me some healthy skepticism for his narrative. Overall, though, the book is reasonably accurate and many of the stories and quotes are honestly shocking even to someone who’s seen a lot.
Second, I’ve been thinking about how I barely even knew this story. The Church seems to have done a very good job of distancing itself from the Laffertys and the murders (and, in fairness, it had in fact excommunicated the two prior to the murders), and I think there is shockingly little information about them and their connection to the LDS Church online apart from the book.
Temple ceremony: This thought isn’t about the book, but the upcoming miniseries. Word has it that the 1980’s version of the temple endowment is going to be shown pretty much word for word in the series. Obviously, for a lot of LDS folks, that’s a dealbreaker – they won’t be watching. I had originally assumed that the ceremony would have some relevance to the murders and so would be important context to understand where the Lafferty brothers were coming from and getting their ideas / inspiration. In the book, however, the temple is basically never mentioned. No talk of the endowment ceremony and no connection between it and the Lafferty beliefs, radicalization, or the murders. So, now I’m wondering about the relevance, though I do plan to watch and I guess will have to report back.
Polygamy: Obviously, this is something that came up a lot – and in particular times when the government has tried (but failed) to intervene in fundamentalists communities, and times when the government has ignored pleas for help. At one point, the author compares the response to the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping to a similar situation where a young girl was forced to marry against her will. In the second case, though, because the girl grew up in the polygamous community, the government accepted the community’s argument that she was with her “family” and didn’t do anything. I think for many years I was in the “live and let live” camp where I didn’t know that it made sense for the government to intervene much. But hearing more about the sexual abuse, incest, and coercion, I don’t feel that way anymore.
Lindsey Hansen Park talks a lot about how our embarrassment about polygamy and desire to distance ourselves from FLDS groups has caused mainstream Mormons to mostly want to ignore places where it is happening. Given our shared heritage and similarities in teachings, though, she argues we should not ignore it (and I agree).
Discussion:
- Have you read the book? Are you planning to watch the miniseries?
- Did you know much about the Lafferty case? Do you think this is something Mormons should be more aware of?
- Do you think Lafferty fundamentalism is different in kind or just by degree from mainstream LDS teachings? How would you distinguish them (or argue that they aren’t that distinguishable)?
- Any responses to some of the themes / issues pointed out above? What about themes or issue I’ve not covered here?
Wheat & Tares 
I found it very interesting that Ron Lafferty’s lawyers wanted to use a diminished capacity defense, since Ron believed that God was talking to him. But is that any crazier than God telling somebody to move to a different house, or to join a church, or the BofM is true? They found themselves on a slippery slope. God talking to a person is the bases for most religions. To say Lafferty was crazy for receiving revelation was not going to work.
The temple ceremony is relevant, considering the details of the murder.
@dylan, I thought that would be the connection too, although I’m not so sure. That was never given as a reason for the throat location (sorry keeping vague to not be so gory here, IYKYK) and nothing was done to the bowels.
Not saying it wasn’t but the connection wasn’t as strong as I had imagined it would be.
Interesting to consider how Ron’s defense attorneys used the “religion caused an altered perception of reality” argument. One could argue that all organized religions pose this same risk. The question is does believing in orthodox Mormonism take this thought process to an extreme?
I used to envy the testimonies of those who marched to the pulpit and started their remarks with: “I know beyond a shadow of a doubt…”. Even while serving as a bishop, I struggled with the realization I could never utter such a seemingly bold statement. Then I considered the implications of these seemingly implacable beliefs – including but not limited to: believing in literalism (especially the OT), Q15 infallibility, and acting on supposed “spiritual promptings” without thinking.
Socrates eloquently stated my current philosophical approach: “An unexamined life is not worth living”. How many of us live unexamined lives and are nothing more than consumers of whatever religions and society place at our doorsteps?
@DeNovo,
“How many of us live unexamined lives and are nothing more than consumers of whatever religions and society place at our doorsteps?”
Isn’t there an argument that the Lafferty brothers actually did go beyond being consumers of what their religion and society placed at their doorsteps? They believed in something a lot bolder and – prior to the murder – paid consequences for it (being excommunicated, losing property because they refused to pay taxes, etc.).
Of course I’m not justifying what they did – it was totally self-serving and self-aggrandizing so I don’t see it as very enlightened. But they would totally take that Socrates quote and run with it.
Yes, I read the book as soon as it came out back in 2003. A fun read. Krakauer is a journalist, not a historian. He’s probably better at crafting a gripping narrative than at getting the facts 100% right. Which isn’t as cutting a criticism as it sounds. LDS apologists and official histories don’t get the facts right sometimes, either, sometimes intentionally.
Part of the mainstream Mormon reaction against Krakauer was because I think most LDS read the subtitle as “the story of a violent faith” (meaning the LDS Church) rather than, as it actually reads, “a story of violent faith” (referring to the misguided faith of the Lafferty brothers). And Krakauer talks about a lot of stuff in the book that Mormons and leaders and apologists don’t want to talk about. Remember the nasty reactions Juanita Brooks got when she published her book on Mountain Meadows in the 1950s. The 1950s! Almost a hundred years after the event, and Mormons and leaders still went nuts when an accurate account of Mountain Meadows was published. So any Mormon who complains that Krakauer didn’t get his facts straight is just blowing smoke. Mormons have been practicing not getting the facts straight for 200 years. Mormons have been practicing ignoring inconvenient facts for 200 years. They were upset with Krakauer because he talked about things that Mormons don’t want to talk about, and the LDS reaction to him was just like the reaction to Brooks two generations earlier.
In the spirit of fair-ness, there’s a review of Krakauer’s book by Richard Turley over at FAIR (link below). I think it protests a little too much (hey, we’re just peaceful Mormons, we’d never hurt a fly, wink, wink, bang) for anyone who is familiar with 19th-century Utah history, but readers can come to their own conclusions.
Click to access turley-Krakauer.pdf
@Elisa
Certainly the Lafferty brothers went beyond the extreme in terms of being mere consumers. I would, however, argue they did not engage in any honest circumspection. Consider that Socrates, when on trial and knowing the consequences, agreed to accept the laws of Athens. He understood that violating the social contract would be an “unprincipled act”. In that context, the Lafferty brothers failed to comprehend the meaning of honest examination.
I have a prediction about who will and will not be watching this show:
1. Progressive and x-Mormons will be watching. Some of us are very excited about it.
2. Most TBMs won’t watch it just like they would not watch Big Love. It’s anti-Mormon crap.
3. Many non-members in Utah will watch because they are curious about their Mormon neighbors
So let’s say I’m correct just for the fun of it. Folks like us (wheat&tares.org) will watch and comment on it. We will pick apart the inaccuracies and we’ll express gratitude for the exposure of the parts of LDS culture and teachings we disagree with. Our non-LDS friends and neighbors (especially in Utah) will sometimes join us. But the folks who need to watch it the most (the hard core TBMs) won’t even give it a look. And if they do, they will dismiss it.
Maybe we can strike a bargain with some TBMs we know: I’ll do X (attend a sacrament meeting, etc. ) if you watch an episode.
Read the book years ago. I also have issues with the author’s method and bias. I remember the case. I do not believe the case is relevant to current LDS thought or life. I know that Latter-day Saints are more than capable of various degrees of evil, from Mountain Meadows to the latest MLM scheme ( I know,, there are worse things, but I have a grudge against MLM schemes). . But I suggest we go further. We should question the notion that ideology, philosophy or belief systems completely separate any human being from evil. Solzhenitsyn was correct. The line between good and evil runs through EVERY person’s heart. Belief systems can help. But those who are truly good choose to be good. And that is a lot of work for some of us.
Great post Elisa and I’m glad someone on W&T is addressing this topic. I’m rushed for time but here are some bullet point responses for what it’s worth.
*I have read everything Krakauer has written. I started following his journalism when he was writing for Outside magazine. If you have read his other works like Into the Wild, Into Thin Air, Where Men Win Glory, Missoula, you’ll better understand Under the Banner of Heaven, and the good, the bad and the ugly of Jon’s research and writing style. Jon is a wonderful storyteller and he tends to focus on cultural history. In my opinion, this is always a more difficult venture to get right, but it makes for a more meaningful read.
*Under the Banner of Heaven needed better fact checking. The editors missed some mistakes. I read it once when it came out so I’m stretching my memory a bit, but the book talked a little about the LDS temple in Calgary. There was no LDS temple in Calgary at the time. I think they were referring to Cardston. Those mistakes made it easy to attack the credibility of the book. However, I would argue Jon accurately nailed the core thesis the book addresses. It’s worth reading and I recommend it to anyone curious, with those caveats.
*When a fellow bishopric member found out at the time I had read it, he was astounded and said, “I thought the church told us not to read that book.” I don’t recall that being the case, but told my good friend, “No one tells me what to read and what not to read.” It’s unfortunate that mindset exists in our culture, but may explain Elisa why such a horrifying event has largely been glossed over along the Wasatch Front. Another reason this event may be a hole in our collective memory is the work Edelman was doing for the church in the 1990’s. Gordon B. Hinkley had taken the unprecedented move and retained Edelman to handle all of the church’s strategic PR work. I can’t remember the exact year Hinkley announced the church had retained Edelman, but believe it may have been around 1994-1996?
*For me, the book does a good job of telling the story of the various fundamentalist Mormon offshoots, and how controlling and abusive those communities are–and I think he raises the real question about the fundamentalist effects and controlling leanings of the mainstream church, obviously Jon’s central thesis. The radical fundamentalists are the offspring of the mainstream church; the genetic connection (metaphorically speaking) is there whether we want to face it or not. The book’s treatment of Mountain Meadows was jarring to me personally–at that time my church history knowledge was just starting to grow. Although uncomfortable to face, I thought Jon did a great job demonstrating how violence is a part of Mormon history in ways that deserve to be addressed candidly and honestly. On some he spends time writing about in the book. Others receive less treatment or are left out. Blood atonement. The temple ceremony’s symbolism. Mountain Meadows. The Danites. The dangers of personal revelation and our lack of theology that could–that could once and for all–soundly answer questions like Can God command you to murder someone? There shouldn’t be any question in any Mormon’s mind about this. But we dither about…. (BTW, I went through the temple for the first time just months before the penalties were removed…and it freaked me out. I recall turning to my dad and whispering, “They aren’t serious about this are they?” And he just shrugged, “I don’t know”! I remember thinking how can you not know? This is cultish.)
*Narcissistic Personality Disorder was not in the mainstream lexicon in the 90’s. I was fascinated to learn in the book it was a BYU psychology professor that helped the court see how Ron Lafferty suffered from it, which explained his murderous behavior, but also demonstrated he was competent to stand trial. Over the next decade (not because of this trial), “narcissism” would start to be talked about widely, mostly in terms of it being a business leadership personality virtue, and then later a liability as many learned having a narcissist as a boss is one of the most horrible experiences you can have. Just as an aside.
I can’t wait for the FX series and plan to watch every episode.
To @josh h and @bigsky’s comments about who read and who will watch …
I agree that most mainstream Mormons won’t watch because of the temple ceremony. That’ll be enough to convince them not to (and I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t have watched a few years ago for that reason, so I’m not judging). (Although I wonder about younger Mormons. The younger people I work with are much more open to media and less puritanical than I ever was, so who knows.)
But the book goes into literally zero detail about the temple or really anything else “sacred” or “secret.” So honestly the only justification for asking people not to read the book is “it makes Mormons look bad …”. And I mean, it does. The Mountain Meadows account is horrifying (I haven’t read Brooks’ book, but I have read about it before, and there was definitely new-to-me information) and he largely draws from Fawn Brodie in describing Joseph Smith. But then again, Richard Bushman did too and admitted she mostly got it right.
The FLDS stuff was interesting since it pre-dated Warren Jeffs …
@old man, true, and this is a question that is impossible to know the answer to – but would Dan and Ron have killed Brenda and Erica (or anyone else) but for their religious beliefs?
That doesn’t mean it’s a religion’s “fault” – it’s Dan and Ron’s fault (and frankly a bunch of people who could have warned or stopped them and didn’t). But I do think it’s fruitful to consider whether there are religious teachings or practices that tend to encourage or condone violence / evil, and root those out. Even if evil will still be around.
I remember when Murder among the Mormons was released. My neighbor said he would not watch something that makes the church look bad. His wife chimed in that it was created by believing Mormons so if it makes the church look bad then that’s on the church and not on “activists” but I’m quite sure he didn’t watch it. I’m sure he would not watch this either. But Book of Mormon musical is coming back through town this year and he’s tentatively agreed to watch that, so who can figure some people out?
Under the Banner of Heaven, which I never read, still made me aware of the story as everyone was talking about it at the time. I was horrified. And conversations about this book made me aware of the temple penalties for the first time (endowed in 1999 so I missed all the fun).
For me, there are so many other things to point to that show the Church is not a healthy institution, that I don’t really need to cling to the actions of a few extremists to prove my case. While these stories are important and the victims are real and there is something for us to learn, it’s not Exhibit A in why the church is failing its mission.
When I was a kid non-LDS people were described as Gentiles. YMMD.
@chadwick, I didn’t think Murder Among the Mormons made the Church look bad at all. They could have totally spun it to blame the Church for the murders (as some do) and point out the way Church leaders lied, were wrong about stuff, and tried to buy documents to bury them … but honestly that just wasn’t a focus. The focus was very much on Hoffman himself.
@vajra2, you don’t have to share but I’d love to know where and when you grew up!
As mentioned I grew up in Highland in the 80’s and 90’s. It was an extremely insular community but we called non-LDS people nonmembers or non-Mormons. In a technical sense would we have acknowledged them as “Gentiles”? And maybe used the word at Church in certain contexts? Maybe. Probably. But it’s just not a word I heard used much. So I’m curious about your experience.
I read the book many years ago, and didn’t like it as much as the other books of his that I’d read. Probably some of that was my own pro-Mormon bias. My strongest impressions of the book are the way he would latch on to some minor thing and emphasize is over and over again. The particular example I remember is how he repeatedly mentioned how Moroni came to Joseph Smith at the autumnal equinox. Over and over again, it was the autumnal equinox, until I got so fed up with his error that I went and looked up when the Moroni visit happened and, hey, it turns out that it was right at the equinox. I’d never heard anyone make that association before (or since), but the way Krakauer was pushing it you’d think it was celebrated as having profound meaning. (I suspect that Krakauer doesn’t realize that the equinox is not always on the same day, and in fact, was on September 23rd in 1823.) His use of “gentiles” probably falls into this category.
The other thing that sticks in my mind from the book is that I felt he did a poor job of distinguishing between different Mormon groups. He would jump around from describing polygamy in the 1800s, to the FLDS in the 1980s to other polygamist groups in such a way that even as someone who had a general idea of how they fit together it felt very muddled. I think someone with little appreciation for the distinction between groups would be hopelessly confused. To be sure, all those polygamy threads certainly have things in common, but as someone who had a polygamist relative who was murdered by people from a rival polygamist group, they can’t always be lumped into one big group.
@Elisa I grew up in Highland in the ’80s and ’90s too–I routinely heard people refers non-Members as “gentiles” especially at church. Not something I heard within my own family, however.
@dave w, I didn’t notice the equinox thing although I imagine he was making the tie to Joseph Smith practicing folk magic. The detail he harped on that bothered me was how wealthy Elizabeth Smart’s family was. Overall, as mentioned in the OP, I found his retelling if that story to be exploitative (maybe because Smart is still alive so I think deserves a little privacy or deference or something).
It seemed to me he did his best with all of the polygamous groups but it definitely does get confusing. I wasn’t paying too much attention to that anyway but I could see where if I had a personal connection to a group like you do I would be frustrated by the conflation.
@Ender2k so weird! Maybe I have just forgotten or never noticed. My dad was a “gentile” (well, a convert) so maybe that’s why I didn’t hear it at home …
Legal standards for an insanity defense vary by state but are extremely high, and typically involve the defendant not comprehending that what he did was a crime. So if I kill you because I think you are a demon, that might qualify, because it’s not illegal to kill demons. But if I kill you because I think *I* am a demon, then that wouldn’t qualify! I should add that the prison system is full of people with psychiatric disorders of some kind.
Being competent to stand trial is a different issue. Basically you have to be of sound enough mind to understand the charges against you, and be able to participate in your own defense. If this does not seem to be the case, the usual recourse is to confine you in some kind of psychiatric facility until you become competent. You would likely be given drugs to combat whatever your disorder is, and counseling aimed at getting you to understand (for example) what you have been charged with, how to behave in court, etc.
I am ashamed to confess that I learned all this stuff by following the Chris Chan case in Virginia. (If you do not know what this is, never google it. Just trust me on this.)
DaveW had “a polygamist relative who was murdered by people from a rival polygamist group”
Sounds like a fascinating story! Might make for a good “Wheat & Tares” post- if it’s not too personal, of course.
@zla’od – thank you. Both were issues here, with hearings on both competency AND an insanity defense (although Ron wouldn’t really agree with the insanity defense).
The case against Elizabeth Smart’s kidnappers also involved a competency hearing. She flew back from an LDS mission to testify because she wanted her kidnappers to finally stand trial (years after the abduction).
I agree that there is a major overlap between psychiatric / psychological disorders and the prison population, and that many incarcerated people need to be treated not jailed. With the Lafferty’s, Ron got crazier and crazier as he got older and I don’t know if that was just his way or dealing with trauma or what – but he was NOT schizophrenic. Narcissistic, yes, but that’s not a defense … but the mental illness angle on this case is certainly interesting.
Re: “Gentiles”
My first college roommate in the fall 1974 was a young woman from a small farming community in southern Minnesota. When she found out that I was a newly minted Mormon she wasted no time in telling me, somewhat indignantly, that her aunt had lived in Utah for a time and had come to understand that the locals thought of and referred to her as a gentile. I was embarrassed by her comment, but couldn’t come up with much in the way of a sophisticated apologetic response. Indeed, I had just been through nearly a year of missionary discussions, church lessons and private conversations in which non-members were very unselfconsciously referred to as gentiles. It was definitely “a thing” as recently as the early ’70s.
I met Ron Lafferty for a few brief minutes following his suicide attempt in 1984. He was restrained and under guard at the time. I remember feeling slightly uneasy in his presence, but also saddened and sobered by such a tragic example of untreated mental illness. His DNA, his cumulative lifetime experiences, his religion brought him to that place, and until science figures it out, there will always be more who walk the same path.
Re: gentiles — I joined the church as a 21 year old in 1984. In short order I went out to BYU and a mission — references to gentiles were common both in my mission community and my BYU circle.
Even as a fairly new convert from outside of Utah, I knew folks whose fervor for the gospel bordered on the kind of fanaticism described in the book. The signs and tokens mimed in the temple ceremony definitely added credibility to the idea that such fervency was a virtue.
@jo, you’ve hit on my guess as to why the temple is going to be in the series – not because it’s directly tied to the murders but to convey that brand of intensity / radicalism / fervor in a way that would otherwise be difficult to show. It’s an easy shortcut into the culture in many ways.
If God tells you to do something, you better dang well do it.
Not guilty.
Political historians love to point out that the first “Gentile” governor of Utah (Simon Bamberger) was, in fact, a Jew.
I read Under the Banner of Heaven back in college, strongly recommended to me by a roommate who was a nonmember if I remember correctly. It really seemed to have an impact on him. Of Krakauer’s books, I’ve also read Into the Wild, Into Thin Air, and Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman. I really liked all of those and would recommend them over this one. Each of those works plays to Krakauer’s strengths as a writer and adventurer.
I was less taken with Under the Banner of Heaven. In both its contemporary subject material and its historical passages of early Mormonism, it felt less immersive than Krakauer’s other works, especially Into the Wild and Into thin Air. Both of those benefit from Krakauer combining his personal experience/parallels with diligent longform journalism. By the time I read this book, I’d already read up on alot of the historical warts of Mormonism via scholarly works. Krakauer’s exploration of the history felt, as I remember it, thinner somehow, relying heavily on second-hand sources. Remembering an interaction I had with history professor Richard Sadler at Weber State University in 2005—if I remember correctly, he felt Krakauer focused too much on sensationalism. Still a really good book, and Krakauer’s popularity enabled him to put these issues in front of a wider audience than Mormon scholars generally can. Lastly, I was born and raised Mormon in the LDS Church, albeit outside Utah. I’d never heard of these murders until I read Under the Banner of Heaven.
Tacking on a comment about the “gentile” subtopic. In 1990ish, I was in high school. I remember sitting at the lunch table chatting about religion with a Jewish friend. Not sure how we got on the subject, but at one point, she looked across the table at me. And with sublime calm and confidence, she said. “Jake, I am Jewish. But as a non-Jew, you are by definition a gentile.”
Her saying that really irked me at the time. Based on my beliefs at the time (along with an unhealthy dose of entitlement) I wanted to say to her: No, you’re wrong. As a member of the only true and living church, which holds all of the priesthood keys, I am a member of the House of Israel. So I’m not a gentile. (Hadn’t yet received my patriarchal blessing, otherwise I totally could have also told her I was “of the blood lineage of Ephraim”.)
Elisa, I haven’t read anything but excerpts from the book, but I spent my teenage years in late 70s and 80s living on the edge of AF (by the Jr High) next to the border with Highland when it mostly farms and mink ranches. One of my friends was neighbors with the Laffertys and I think my uncle served on the city council at the same time. They really were pretty mainstream Mormons until suddenly they weren’t. The murders and the theology behind them were a big deal locally at the time and there was lots and lots of local news coverage as well as church gossip. The thing that strikes me even now is that Highland/AF /Alpine had a lot of wild west theology kicking around behind the scenes then that seemed mostly talk, but has blossomed to become more mainstream for Mormons in the area over the years. I am shocked by some of the pro-Ammon Bundy, pro Q-Anon, alt-right things that I see my high school classmates post on social media, especially from classmates that seemed very mainstream during the time we went to high school in the late 80s. People who I would not have thought of as violent that are now seemingly okay with using pretty violent language in attacking liberals, LGBTQ individuals, and people of color. (And that was before Holland’s call to musket arms.) In the 80s, there was violent Porter Rockwell / Danite folk lore that got talked about, but that seemed mostly posturing, so that the Laffertys were unusual at the time for actually carrying out murders in the name of God.
I do think it was fairly common for people in the area to use the term Gentiles then, I think non-member became more common by the late 80s.
@10ac interesting! When I moved to Highland it was when Highland’s population was really exploding (the first time … then it exploded again after I graduated and is now unrecognizable to me). My neighborhood was all new houses as was basically everywhere else I spent any time – so it was not really “locals” but transplants who worked in Utah County or Salt Lake. So I expect that culturally the Highland you and I were exposed to was pretty different.
We did have a period with some pretty far right people in my neighborhood the first couple of years we were there … some interesting stories from them … but they all moved to Idaho and my neighborhood was just accountants, doctors, dentists, upper middle class and not super weird …
Were you near the guy who has tons and tons of old junker cars on his property because he thinks in the second coming they’ll be fixed and run like new and he’ll be rich? Hah!
Re the term gentile for non-Mormons, I’m from PA, and I only heard it once or twice, but I thought it was meant as a joke (as in, if we really were Israelites, aka Jews, other people would be gentiles, ha ha). It definitely was not a term used regularly, although maybe I heard it more when I got to BYU in the mid-80s. For anyone to use the term for real is, IMO, really tone deaf. It feels like cultural appropriation.
Anyhoo, I’m intrigued to see what the film makes of the endowment, although I honestly don’t like that it’s included on some level and have zero desire to see it portrayed in this context, but needs must if I want to watch the series. I assumed (as someone who went through the temple in 1988) that it was a creative necessity to illustrate the penalties that have their roots in blood atonement, and so I figure they will link the murders to Brigham Young’s alarming and horrific teachings on that topic. Even if the details of the murder don’t directly match all the penalties, tying it back to BY’s teachings on blood atonement might be a salient connection.
I haven’t read Krakauer’s book, although the criticisms I’ve heard here all sound pretty accurate from what I’ve heard. He makes a big deal out of some fairly small things (the equinox is a new one to me too!), and so it doesn’t feel accurately Mormon. The historical stuff like MMM and things routinely said in the earlier eras of the Church are unrecognizable to nearly all Mormons today, except those who actually read the not whitewashed history.
Elisa
We didn’t live that near the junkyard of cars, but it was definitely an infamous landmark. Now most of Highland is nearly unrecognizable to me. Admittedly I only get to Utah about every five years or so, but it makes my heart ache that all the fields and farms have been turned into massive subdivisions. I get lost trying to drive by memory except for the old parts of AF.
I plan to write up my experiences with Dan Lafferty in the next few weeks. But let me share one story that Elisa’s synopsis triggered.
I came off my mission in September 1981. My family had moved to Provo the year before. Dan and his brother Mark were my dad’s chiropractors. I had some neurological issues that physicians hadn’t been able to resolve (and still haven’t) so I gave them a try. Their treatment was a strange combination of chiropractic, supplements, and “challenging the spirit” – but that will have to wait for another day. I did spend many hours with the brothers as they discussed their religious and political beliefs.
In early 1982, Dan called me at work. He had recently married a woman with 6 or so kids from a previous marriage (I ran into him and his wife at the temple a couple of times). His oldest stepdaughter had turned 16 three weeks before. He told me no one had asked her out yet and that he would only let her date returned missionaries – and he asked me to ask her on a date. He said that she was feeling bad that no one had asked her out.
I said that I was not comfortable with that because she was so young. He insisted that he and his wife felt impressed that she should only date RMs and that they were prompted that I should be the first date. The call went on for nearly half an hour and finally, I said I would ask her to lunch. She was their receptionist so I said I would ask her on my next visit. Dan offered to pay for it – I said no because it would be hurtful if she ever found out that he had paid someone to date her.
We did go to lunch at a very open restaurant. It was awkward because of the age difference – we didn’t have much life experience in common. And, thankfully, that was the end of that.
Now I read in the OP that Dan was excommunicated a short time after for trying to MARRY this girl’s younger sister (14 yo). I guess that explains why Dan didn’t understand how I thought it inappropriate to date a 16-year-old.
I continued as a patient until sometime in 1983. During our many discussions in the course of treatment, Dan never said he had been excommunicated. He did tell me about their “School of the Prophets” and asked me to join them. Very glad I declined.
Jake C.
Years ago I worked with a very smart and funny Jewish woman who once asked me why we mormans thought we needed to proselytyze (read that: “bother”) the world with our message. After explaining a little bit about our dearly held if peculiar beliefs and our great desire to share them, I asked her why Jews don’t proselytize. I’ll never forget her terse response: “Why should we? We’re chosen, you’re not!” I had never felt more like a true gentile.
I grew up in American Fork, too, in the 80s and 90s, but I was only 5 when the murders happened, and so I wasn’t really aware of them at the time. But they were definitely in the zeitgeist of the area, because I heard the names every so often. I never got details, however. The most anyone ever really told me was, “The Lafferty brothers murdered two people in American Fork.”
At the time, the area was super-white, super-Mormon, and super-conservative (and I imagine probably still is). There was definitely a lot of John Birch Society and Eagle Forum nonsense in the vicinity, and if anyone in the 2200-person high school was a non-Mormon or was LGBT, they certainly kept it quiet. (I ran with the choir and theater crowds, and so there were definitely people who were LGBT, but none of them came out until after high school.) It was the kind of area in which extremism like that could have room to blossom because the Overton Window was so far right already.
Re: Gentiles
Yep, I’m completely guilty of using this term back in the 90’s for non-members. I’m glad to see it is no longer being used.
moovusgroovus: My relative in question is Rulon Allred. He’s my first cousin, twice removed, and was killed in 1977, a few years before I was born. There seem to have been a shocking number of religiously motivated murders in Utah in the 70s and 80s, Allred’s murder, the trial of the killers, books by his children and a book by his killer have all been pretty well documented, so if anyone wants to read up on it, you don’t need me to do it. It’s been many years since I’ve read Under the Banner of Heaven, but I assume Krakauer wouldn’t have passed up an opportunity to mention polygamists killing each other, just a few years before the Lafferty murders.
As a fun side note, I am also distantly related to the man who ordered Allred’s killing (Ervil LeBaron, a bad guy name if I’ve ever seen one), and the Laffertys. Good thing we do all this genealogy!
@davew, the book does discuss that murder. And I thought it was pretty clear that the two groups were different sets …
I haven’t seen how closely related I am to and of these folks, but I do have family ties to John D Lee …
I’m thinking Krakauer could have a field day with the Daybell case.
There is a review of the mini-series “Under the Banner” at sltrib.com.
Well I watched the first episode of the Hulu series.
So. Much. Cringe.
I’m not sure if it’s worth continuing, but I’ll be watching a least another episode anyway.
@rockwell cringe because they are getting Mormonism wrong or another kind of cringe?
Yes, cringe because the Mormonism seems off and overly exaggerated. They are trying too hard. I actually think it’s good TV, but the Mormonism angle is over the top.
As an example, Andrew Garfield called out his co worker for using bad language, something I’ve never heard an adult Mormon say to another adult. He asks the co worker to let him lead on the case, so he can talk to the suspect “Mormon to Mormon”, and then the bro code uses for the interrogation use is extremely fake. Those may seem like small things, but it seems like nearly every character interaction has something like that.
Jim Bennett did a Twitter storm about it, much of which I agree with, like this “ The dialogue in “Under the Banner of Heaven” sounds as if it was lifted entirely from New Era MormonAds.”
Having now watched the second episode, I’m definitely into the story, but very much turned off, or perhaps triggered, by the dialogue. After all, I have in fact met a person or two who talk like the people in this series, and I thought that was cringeworthy in real life as well.
It’s entirely possible many Mormons that watch it will distrust it entirely because of how much it exaggerates Mormon language and culture. It’s going to be a sore spot for many of them because it makes Mormonism look even weirder than it really is.
I can see why it is done this way, though. Aside from a perhaps a bit of ignorance on the part of the writers, they also need to get a certain mood and ambience that they want in a short amount of time. Every word in a tv script needs to count for something, so the Mormonism gets condensed into something very dense in order to get a point across.
@rocky I have totally heard adults call each other out for swearing so YMMV there. I have also heard people share in church meetings how they asked coworkers not to swear.
I can’t really comment yet because I haven’t watched. I take issue with Bennett thinking he gets to define what it’s like “on the inside” of Mormonism since I think the Mormon experience varies a ton depending on where you live, your family, your ward, your personal level of scrupulosity, etc etc. But it does sound like some bad dialogue.
I will be interested to see what other people think of the show and whether they feel similarly. But to me it feels a little bit like someone outside of my family is talking about someone inside my family and getting it all wrong.
That said, I’m really into the story now and the mannerisms are bothering me less; I will definitely continue watching.